5.4 Assessments previously
made of the value of unpaid pollination services

5.5 A comprehensive approach
to valuation of pollination services

5.6 Value of pollination
services in each State

5.7 Validation of data

5.8 References

6. DEPENDENCE ON NATIVE FORESTS
ON PUBLIC LANDS 6.1 Summary

6.2 Introduction

6.3 Public land as a resource
base for migratory beekeeping

6.4 Reliance on native
flora on public land for floral resources, and the response of governments
to the issue of access

6.5 Pesticide-free refuges

6.6 Maintaining hive strength

6.7 Effects of excluding
beekeeping from conserved areas

6.8 References

7. THE EFFECTS OF HONEY BEES
ON NATIVE FLORA AND FAUNA 7.1 Summary

7.2 Background

7.3 Scientific studies
on the environmental effects of honey bees

7.3.1 Competition studies

Effects on native bees

Effects on birds

Effects on pollination
of plants

Effects on nesting sites

7.4 The importance of measuring
floral resources in ecological studies

7.5. Why managed and feral
honey bees must be distinguished

Feral colonies

7.6 Discussion

7.7 References

8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

1. SUMMARY

Beekeeping is a unique primary industry.
It depends on floral resources - nectar and pollen - about 80% of which
are produced from native flora. Much of this resource is on public land.
It is produced irregularly and beekeepers must often follow the seasons
and honeyflows, sometime over large distances, to be successful. The
many skills required for beekeeping are learned by experience and often
passed from generation to generation.

The industry finds itself under increasing
pressure on a number of fronts. The area of native forest is declining.
Governments, responding to community pressure, are conserving more of
what remains. Traditional access by beekeepers to conserved forests
is being questioned because honey bees are not native to Australia,
and beekeepers are being denied access to some of their most valuable
floral resources. Also, the industry is under threat from a number of
exotic pests which have caused extensive damage to honey bees overseas.
Agriculture, while providing floral resources, also competes when land
is cleared and chemicals are used on crops.

In order to deal with these issues properly,
the industry needs access to up-to-date information on its value and
impacts. Although scattered widely, many of the facts and figures are
available in existing reports and publications. This study brings the
relevant information together in a useful form, and answers the following
questions:

What is the overall size of the
industry?

Managed honey bees are found in all Australian
states and territories. There are around 673,000 registered hives in
Australia, producing not only honey and beeswax but also live bees (queens
and package bees), and other products such as pollen and royal jelly.
Around 467,000 hives are operated by beekeepers with a minimum of 200
hives, and these are considered to represent the commercial industry.
It is estimated that an average of at least 30,000 tonnes of honey are
produced each year in Australia, with nearly 45% of this total coming
from beekeepers resident in NSW. Between 9,000 and 12,000 tonnes of
honey are exported each year.

How much are apiary products worth?

The apiary industry has its economic impact
via direct effects (the gross value of production), indirect effects
(demand stimulated in linked sectors) and crop pollination services.
The gross value of production over all sectors of the industry is estimated
as being between $60 and $65 million per annum, of which $49 million
comprises honey production. As expected from hive registration data,
NSW beekeepers contribute around 44% of this total value of production.

Major items of expenditure for the industry
are labour and transport – with fuel being the largest single component
of the latter. It is estimated that around 80% of income (turnover)
is spent on costs of production, which means that much of the income
generated by the sale of honey and other products remains in rural areas
of Australia. Other supply sectors are located throughout Australia.

What is the value of crop pollination
provided by honey bees?

Some crops like almonds set very little
fruit without insect pollination. Others like cucurbits and strawberries
also require effective pollination by bees for fruit quality - shape
and size. The benefits of crop pollination accrue to the agricultural
sector and flow on to the entire Australian community. Previous estimates
of a total value of paid and unpaid pollination of around $1.2 billion/year
are supported by this study. Estimates of values to individual states
vary from $60 - 251 million. Income from paid pollination services (although
representing a minor part of this total estimated value) is important
to individual beekeepers in every state, and this sector is expected
to expand.

Why is access to native forests
on public land so important?

The apiary industry is heavily dependent
on public land - state forests, national parks, other conserved forests,
stockroutes etc - because it contains the majority of remaining native
forest which provides most of the floral resource. It also provides
much of the network of apiary sites which the industry needs to access
to harvest the honey flows which occur irregularly and for short periods
in respective districts. Native forests on public lands also provide
the "safe harbour" and clean rehabilitation area needed to maintain
and rebuild the strength and health of hives.

Does access vary from state to state?

The response from government to the issue
of access to resources on public land - particularly conserved areas
- differs from state to state. In New South Wales, for example, access
to national parks has been reduced drastically through government policy
and the industry is very concerned about loss of important apiary sites.
In other states like Victoria, access agreements, which do not compromise
conservation objectives, have been reached and reflected in legislation.
Overall, beekeepers are negotiating satisfactory agreements through
industry consultative committees. These agreements need to be supported
by legislation. Without reasonable access, the industry could not survive
in its present form.

What effects do honey bees have
on native plants and animals?

The evidence so far suggests that the
effects on insect pollinators and on competition with fauna for nesting
hollows are either absent or minor. Some studies show that bird behaviour,
seed set and pollination may be affected by honey bees under some circumstances
- if the nectar resource is limiting. However no adverse effects of
any kind have been demonstrated in studies where the resource is not
limiting. This is important because the migratory commercial beekeeping
industry seeks to operate in native forests including conserved areas
under conditions of excess resource.

Policy makers also need to distinguish
between possible effects of feral and managed honey bee populations.
Feral honey bees are uncontrolled, self-sustaining, ubiquitous and sometimes
present in high numbers. Managed honey bees are moved regularly to harvest
excess honeyflows and their numbers and location are controlled by beekeepers
and public land managers.

Can honey be used to kill bacteria?

The development of honey as a therapeutic
agent is an exciting prospect for the industry in Australia. It has
long been known that honey has anti-bacterial properties and is useful
in the treatment of wounds, burns, ulcers and other complaints in humans.
Researchers here and overseas are putting effort into developing treatments
and understanding the factors which provide the anti-bacterial activity,
and into assessing which honeys possess the most therapeutic values.

Finally, is the industry at risk
from exotic pests and diseases?

The industry is under significant threat
from several exotic pests and diseases. Arguably the worst is the Varroa
mite Varroa jacobsoni which originated on the Asian honey bee
Apis cerana in the Indonesian Archipelago and transferred to
the introduced European honey bee Apis mellifera. The mite spread
westward into the Asian and European continents and has recently entered
North America and the United Kingdom. It has decimated domestic and
feral honey bee populations. Varroa has been found in the northern islands
of the Torres Strait where it has been contained by strenuous quarantine
action.

The Honeybee Tracheal mite Acarapis
woodii, Asian mite Tropilaelaps clareae and several lesser
fungal and bacterial diseases should also be excluded. The Asian mite
could be as severe as Varroa. The greatest economic impact of either
of these mites would be on the agricultural and horticultural industries
of Australia which depend on effective insect pollination for maximum
production.

2. INTRODUCTION

Beekeeping is a unique primary industry.
Its basic resources - nectar and pollen -are rarely owned by the beekeeper.
Unlike other primary producers, beekeepers require virtually no land
of their own. Beekeeping "land" takes the form of small apiary sites
which are leased from private landholders or public authorities. Even
large commercial beekeepers require and own only small rural allotments
of 1 ha to 5 ha bordering substantial rural towns or cities. The economic
base for beekeeping is held in highly depreciating materials such as
hives and machinery and sheds. This contrasts starkly with land owning
farmers who have, in the land, a stable or appreciating asset.

Beekeeping requires an affinity with the
land and a detailed knowledge of the complicated behaviour of the honey
bee itself, the plants which provide the resource, nature conservation
and agricultural production. One of the major skills in beekeeping is
to know several months ahead the yield potential of favourable floral
resources of nectar and pollen. This kind of knowledge is acquired largely
by experience and is often passed from generation to generation.

The industry finds itself under increasing
pressure on a number of fronts. The Australian community is becoming
more concerned about conservation of remaining forests and the Commonwealth
and state governments are taking steps to conserve the resource for
future generations. Traditional access by beekeepers to forests is being
questioned and sometimes restricted because honey bees are not native
to Australia. The industry is also under threat from a number of exotic
pests and diseases which have caused extensive damage overseas. Agriculture,
while often providing floral resources, also competes when floral resources
are destroyed by land clearing and herbicide applications and when chemicals
are applied to crops.

Eucalypt woodland dieback, salting, pine
plantations on public land, reduced flooding regimes on some major river
systems and urban sprawl are additional factors contributing to pressures
on the viability and flexibility of beekeeping in Australia.

The federal and state organisations representing
the interests of beekeepers must address these issues. This requires
access to accurate and up-to-date information on the industry and its
impacts. Much of this information is available in reports and publications
produced by state departments, research organisations and the various
industry sectors. However it is scattered widely. The aim of this study
is to collect this information in a form which is useful to the industry
and its stakeholders. The Federal Council of Australian Apiarists’ Associations
has commissioned this study in order to provide a summary of information
relevant to a discussion of the issues facing the beekeeping industry
in Australia.

The specific aims are to:

provide a clear and concise overview
of the size, nature, and economic role of the industry

provide economic information for
use at the state level to negotiate state or regional agreements

provide an assessment of the ecological
interactions involving bees in native forests.

The consultants commissioned to undertake
this study collected information from the following sources:

the Australian Bureau of Statistics

Federal Council of Australian Apiarists’
Associations (FCAAA), and state beekeeping associations

Rural Industries Research and Development
Corporation (Honey Bee Research and Development Committee)

honey packers

state and commonwealth departments
of primary industry

the research community

individual beekeepers.

The consultants were aware that the amount
of detailed information on production, value and dependence on forests
would vary from state to state. It was also realised that state-based
information on production and value would carry inherent anomalies because
beekeepers residing in one state often gather honey from another and may
also sell to an interstate packer. The extent of these inherent discrepancies
is hard to quantify. It was also recognised that a significant but unmeasured
amount of production does not pass through the hands of commercial packers.

To overcome these anomalies, production
was measured in different ways - from the ABS statistics, from voluntary
levies paid on production, from the number of hives and average production
per hive, and from the records of the major packers.

The information on ecological effects
is based on published reports. This issue has had a high profile in
Australia and several major reviews have been prepared by individual
researchers or commissioned by the (then) Australian Nature Conservation
Agency.

Published reports and industry estimates
were used to estimate the value of pollination. This is a significant
topic because it totally overshadows the value of production - by a
factor of at least 20:1 - and is often overlooked when the total value
of the industry is being considered.

Although a great deal of information was
available, the authors have sometimes been required to make estimates
on the best data available. This report states when, how and why particular
estimates were made.

As time passes, more information will
become available. The authors hope that this report will be a "living"
document which can be updated to retain its usefulness for many years
to come.

3. THE BEEKEEPING INDUSTRY
IN AUSTRALIA

3.1 Summary

Managed honey bees are found in all
States of Australia, although little honey is produced from the Northern
Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. A wide range of Australian
flora produces good quantities of nectar, as do many exotic flora, including
important food and pasture crops.

There are around 673,000 registered
hives in Australia, producing not only honey and beeswax but also live
bees (queens and package bees), and other products such as pollen and
royal jelly. Around 467,000 hives are operated by beekeepers with a
minimum of 200 hives, and these are considered to represent the commercial
industry. It is estimated that an average of at least 30,000 tonnes
of honey are produced each year in Australia, with nearly 45% of this
total coming from NSW. Between 9,000 and 12,000 tonnes of honey are
exported each year.

3.2 Introduction

The first successful introduction of honey
bees (Apis mellifera) to Australia took place in 1822. Honey
bees were able to provide settlers with the important food and food
sweetener used by the people of the Old World for centuries. Honey bees
were also used to pollinate crops, most of which were introduced. Australian
flora were found to produce good quantities of nectar, and honey bees
quickly naturalised throughout Australian native forest systems by the
mid-1800’s. As the interior of the continent was opened up by settlers,
they were able to draw stocks of honey bees from the feral population
or obtain hives from beekeepers to establish small apiaries, and the
Australian honey industry became established.

There are currently around 673,000 registered
hives in Australia, with an unknown number of hives estimated to be
in use but not registered. Actual numbers vary from year to year, depending
on seasonal conditions and relative price movements in the industry’s
major products. These major products are :

- honey

- beeswax.

In addition, specialised segments of the
industry concentrate beekeeping activities towards the production of
:

- queen bees

- package bees

- the provision of specialist paid
honey bee pollination services to Australian horticultural and agricultural
industries.Queen bees and package bees are sold to other
beekeepers both within Australia and overseas. Honey and beeswax are still
produced by queen and package bee producers, but these products are not
the prime goal of their beekeeping activities. Other minor products from
the industry include :

- pollen

- royal jelly

- propolis

- bee venom.

The economic dimensions of the industry,
and the direct and indirect impacts that beekeeping has at a State and
sector level, are discussed in Chapter 4.

3.3 Snapshot of industry dimensions

Data on hive registrations provides an
indication of the total size of the industry, which is summarised in
the following Table 1. These data have been sourced from registration
data held by most State regulatory bodies (generally the Departments
of Agriculture, or equivalent). No data has been recorded for the Australian
Capital Territory, nor for the Northern Territory, as the beekeeping
industry is not considered to have a significant presence in either
region.

It is recognised that a number of hives
are operated by part-time and "hobby" beekeepers, with total numbers
of hives operated by these individuals being insufficient to support
a full-time activity. This production may be significant. In Western
Australia, for example, non-commercial beekeepers produce about 23%
of the state’s honey production. This analysis has assumed that those
beekeepers operating a minimum of 200 hives can be considered as "commercial"
operators in the industry.

Table 1Registered hives, Australia : by State(number)

State

"Commercial" hives

Total hives

NSW

Queensland

Victoria

South Australia

Western Australia

Tasmania

AUSTRALIA

209,04978,85773,05759,70036,8379,184466,684

277,642130,723119,55177,10052,32815,213672,557

Source : Departments of Agriculture in
all States except TasmaniaTasmanian data from the industry (Tasmanian
Beekeepers’ Association)

An assessment has been made of the total
production of the industry, drawing on a number of sources, to provide
an indication of the dimensions of beekeeping activity in Australia.

i) Based on ABS data : data
compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) indicates total
production of honey of just under 19,000 tonnes in 1994/95. However,
these data are gathered only from beekeepers operating more than 320
hives, which excludes at least one-third of production. Industry
opinion is that the ABS data has long been at variance with data compiled
by the Australian Horticultural Corporation (AHC), which is based on
levies paid (see below). Production data from this source is therefore
only partial, and must be considered as very conservative.

ii) Based on levies paid : Beekeepers
pay a research levy on honey production to the (Federal) Department
of Primary Industries and Energy. Production must be above a minimum
level (600 kg per annum) before the levy is payable - although a levy
is paid on smaller quantities if supplied to a packer. In 1995/96,
total levies were paid on the production of around 26,000 tonnes of
honey. In addition to production below the minimum level, it is
acknowledged that levies are not paid on all honey production, either
because hives are not registered and/or because not all production is
declared for the purposes of levy assessment. Assuming that 12%
to 15% more honey is produced (industry estimate) than is subject to
levy, then total levy payments could suggest total production in the
order of 29,000 to 30,000 tonnes, as a minimum.

iii) Based on honey receivals :
the largest honey packer in Australia, Capilano, is reported to account
for around 67% of all sales of honey in Australia (Capilano, personal
communication). Total honey receivals by Capilano in 1996 (Capilano
data provided) were just under 20,000 tonnes - which suggests total
Australian production could be in the order of 31,000 tonnes.

iv) Based on numbers of hives :
Production can be estimated from the number of hives and production
per hive. Larger commercial operators would expect to produce significantly
higher volumes of honey per hive per year than the non-commercial operators,
with figures from Western Australia (Manning 1992) putting average
production at 27% to 60% higher for commercial operators on public land
and private property respectively. Commercial operators are reported
to produce up to 145 kg of honey per hive per year (Manning 1992).
Figures from the Queensland beekeeping industry (personal communication)
indicate that 5-year average production levels of 75 kg per hive per
year can be expected.

Based on the number of commercial hives
(i.e., those operated by beekeepers with more than 200 hives), and assuming
that average annual production per hive is around 70 kg, then total
production of honey in Australia is around 32,675 tonnes. If production
per hive averages 80 kg, then total honey annual production would be
in the order of 37,335 tonnes. If all hives (commercial and hobby)
are assumed to produce 50 kg of honey per year, then total honey production
in Australia could be around 33,627 tonnes.

This comparison would suggest that honey
production in Australia is at least 30,000 tonnes per annum. While
the number of hives could well vary from year to year, variation will
also occur in average production levels per hive (depending on seasonal
conditions), so that actual honey production in any one year could well
be above or below this estimate. Data from Capilano indicates
that although there is some fluctuation between total receivals from
year to year (in response to changing seasonal conditions), average
levels of production over the last twenty years have remained fairly
constant.

The use of hive numbers as the basis for
the assessment of honey production would appear to be justified by other
possible derivations of production. This estimate can be considered
conservative, with actual production likely to be higher because

- annual production levels
per hive of just 70 kg have been used - actual production levels of
up to 130 kg have been reported by some producers, and it is considered
that an average of 100 kg could be achieved by most commercial operators.
In Western Australia, annual hive production levels of 200 kg are quite
common (Manning 1996).

- the large number of unregistered
hives, and the fact that all production from beekeepers with less than
200 hives, has been excluded from the assessment.

Given these conservative assumptions,
it is possible that total production of honey in Australia could be
higher than the 32,000 tonnes per annum figure quoted. If less
conservative assumptions are made, then total production could even
be in the order of :

- 47,000 tonnes, if an average
of 70 kg is produced by all registered hives, which still excludes production
from unregistered hives

- 53,000 tonnes, if all commercial
operators produce an average of 100 kg per hive, with the other hives
producing an average amount 30 kg each, still excluding production from
unregistered hives.

This analysis has therefore used an estimate
of annual production of around 32,675 tonnes of honey, based on hive
numbers (those operated by beekeepers with more than 200 hives) and
an annual average production per hive of 70 kg.

3.4 Industry by State

Use of data on the number of hives as
a source of estimates of total honey production can then be used to
derive estimates of production from each State of Australia. Table
2 indicates a conservative estimate of total production of honey, by
State.

Table 2 Honey production, Australia : by
State (tonnes per annum)

State

Honey production

Share total (%)

NSW

Queensland

Victoria

South Australia

Western Australia

Tasmania

AUSTRALIA

14,6355,5205,1154,1802,58064532,675

44.816.915.612.87.92.0100.0

New South Wales is clearly the
largest single source of honey in Australia. However, as described in
Chapter 4, the beekeeping industry in other States is also significant,
in terms of the direct and indirect economic impact generated.

3.5 Industry by sector

The overall apiary industry should be
considered in terms of a number of sectors, as follows :

i) Honey and wax producers.
This is the sector generally considered when "beekeeping" is discussed.
As outlined above, it is estimated that total production of honey in
Australia is around 32,675 tonnes per annum. With a fairly constant
relationship between honey and beeswax production (assumed at 1 kg wax
for every 60 kgs honey - industry sources, personal communication),
this suggests a total annual production of beeswax in Australia of around
545 tonnes. To the extent that honey production estimates are conservative,
then these estimates of total beeswax production will also be conservative.
Other researchers (e.g., Manning 1992) have suggested that the ratio
between honey and wax production in W.A. is 1 kg wax per 34.5 kg honey
(or even higher depending on extraction techniques used). Extrapolating
a 1:34.5 ratio to the Australian industry would suggest that total beeswax
production in Australia could be up to 950 tonnes.

ii) Queen and package bee producers.
In commercial honey production, the usual practice is to replace the
queen bee in a hive every eighteen months. While half of the total
replacement queen requirement is usually met by breeding within the
commercial operation, the remaining queens are purchased from specialist
breeders. On this basis, and assuming a total population of 467,000
commercial hives (see Table 1), an annual demand for around 155,670
queen bees each year can be estimated. In addition, specialist operators
provide entire colonies, termed package bees, for supply to producers
who require re-stocking - with most demand for package bees now coming
from overseas markets.

iii) Honey packers. Most
commercial honey producers are contracted to supply annual volumes
of honey to major packers. In Australia, the major packer is Capilano
Honey Limited (Capilano). The estimated market share of the national
grocery honey market is :

Capilano brands 41.7%

Leabrook Farms 10.6%

Other brands 8.3%

Housebrand/generics 39.4%

(source: Capilano Honey Ltd
Annual report 1996)

The two principal packers also provide
the majority of the generic products. Capilano’s share of the total
domestic market is in the order of 67%. The two major packers also export
an increasing volume of honey to overseas markets - both in bulk, and
in retail packs. Around 10% of Capilano’s total revenue came from retail
packed exports in 1996, with strong growth in this sector during the
year.

iv) Exports. Exports of
Australian honey are an important segment of the total market, as indicated
in Table 3. Exports of honey have averaged over 10,000 tonnes per annum
over recent years, representing between 25% and 30% of estimated total
production.

Table 3Exports of Honey and Beeswax, Australia

Year

Exports Honey (tonnes)

Exports Beeswax (tonnes)

1990/911991/921992/931993/941994/951995/961996/97 (e)

11,107.69,036.19,108.313,019.89,677.79,756.411,686.2

344.7295.9365.7382.9228.9338.5369.4

(e) estimated annual total, on basis of
10-month data from July 96 to April 97. Source : ABS

It is clear that the Australian bee-keeping
industry has a major presence in all States of Australia.

Economic impacts generated by support
activities, and as a result of services provided by the apiary industry,
are outlined in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 outlines the economic impacts
generated as a result of the pollination services provided by managed
honey bees. 3.6 References

ABS (1994/95) Australian production
of honey (volume and value), by States, Unpublished data purchased from
the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

Capilano Annual Report, 1996. Capilano
Honey Limited, Brisbane.

Manning, R (1992). Honey production, economic
value and geographical significance of apiary sites in Western Australia.
Final Report for the Honeybee Research and Development Council Project
DAW 3H.

4.1 Summary The apiary industry has an economic impact
via direct effects (the gross value of production), indirect effects
(demand stimulated in linked sectors) and crop pollination effects.
The gross value of production over all sectors of the industry is estimated
as being between $60 and $65 million per annum, of which $49 million
comprises honey production. As expected from hive registration
data (Chapter 3), NSW contributes around 44% of this total value of
production.

Major items of expenditure for the industry
are labour and transport – with fuel being the largest single component
of the latter. It is estimated that around 80% of income (turnover)
is spent on costs of production, which means that much of the income
generated by the sale of honey and other products remains in rural areas
of Australia. Other supply sectors are located throughout Australia.

Pollination services are provided by honey
bees. Some services are paid for, but overall this source of income
for beekeepers is very minor when compared to income from honey and
other products. The total value of pollination services incidentally
provided by bees, which is very much larger than the price paid for
such services, is discussed in detail in Chapter 5. The level
of pollination services provided by industry to agriculture and horticulture
is expected to increase significantly.

The development of honey as a therapeutic
agent is an exciting development which could help the industry in Australia
in the future. It has long been known that honey has anti-bacterial
properties and is useful in the treatment of wounds, burns, ulcers
and other complaints in humans. Researchers here and overseas are putting
effort into developing treatments and understanding the factors which
provide the anti-bacterial activity.

Several exotic pests and diseases pose
significant threats to the economic well-being of the industry. Probably
the worst is the Varroa mite which is carried on an Asian honey bee
(Apis cerana) which has been found in the Torres Strait and is being
excluded now by quarantine action. Varroa mites would be expected
to decimate feral honey bee populations and reduce the profitability
of managed honey bees, as it has done in north America and Europe.
Pollination of crops - worth in the order of $1.2 billion - would be
severely affected. There are also other mites, fungal and bacterial
diseases which should be excluded.

4.2 Introduction The apiary industry in Australia has an
economic impact that consists of :

i) the gross value of production generated
by the industry. This production provides the direct economic
role of the industry, and is often considered as the sole source of
economic impact. The gross value of production includes not only
the value of honey produced, but also the value of beeswax, queen and
package bees, and other products such as pollen, royal jelly, bee venom,
and propolis.

ii) the stimulation of demand from other
linked (mainly supply) sectors. This type of impact is often referred
to as the multiplier, or “flow-on” effect, and includes the value of
output (and employment, wages, value-added, etc.,) that is produced
by all sectors either providing goods and services to the beekeeping
industry, or receiving goods and services from the industry.

iii) the crop pollination services provided
by honey bees. Many agricultural sectors, particularly those involved
in the production of horticultural commodities such as fruit, depend
heavily on insect pollination to maximise yields. Some pollination
services are paid, with beekeepers receiving income from placing hives
adjacent to flowering crops. While some honey may also be obtained
(e.g., from clovers), this is not often the case - in crops such as
fruit and nut trees, no honey is obtained.. However, the large
majority of pollination services are unpaid (incidental pollination),
and represent a beneficial externality derived from beekeeping activities.

Each of these three types of impact is
outlined in this chapter. Further discussion on the impacts of
the beekeeping industry which are imparted via the pollination services
provided is presented in Chapter 5.

4.3 Direct impact of industry -
gross value of production 4.3.1 By sector i) Honey. Honey is the prime output
of commercial beekeepers, and is produced by bees from plant nectar.
It is conservatively estimated that total production of honey in Australia
could have a “farm gate” value (i.e., total returns derived by beekeepers)
of around $ 50 million per annum (1996 figures). This gross value
of production estimate is derived from the following assumptions:

- total annual production of around 32,000
tonnes (which has been demonstrated in Chapter 3 to be conservative),
and

- an average price received of $1.50/kg
honey in all States except Tasmania, where an average price of $2.00/kg
is received, reflecting the higher value of leatherwood honey produced
in that State. This average value of $1.50/kg can be compared
to published figures such as ABS export unit values in 1995/96 (ABS
trade data) of $2.07/kg, and $2.40/kg in 1996/97 (estimate based on
10 month data). However, these unit values are assumed to include
a component for transport and packing, so that farm-gate values would
be lower. Data from Capilano (Annual Report, 1996) indicate that
the average price paid for honey received in 1996 was $1.50/kg, and
$1.29 in 1995. The ABS production data, while acknowledged as
under-reporting total production, indicates an average unit value of
$1.31 for Australia in 1994/95 - which is close to the Capilano 1995
figure. The ABS data also indicates that average prices received
in Tasmania were higher than other States, at $2.01/kg.

Farm gate average values for honey
in 1997 may be higher than $1.50/kg, which would suggest that gross
value of production from the honey sector could be higher than $49 million.

ii) Beeswax. Beeswax is a substance
secreted by the worker bees. It is recovered by beekeepers primarily
from honey comb cappings, and also from cull combs and wax pieces.
Beeswax is used in certain pharmaceutical and cosmetic preparations,
as a base for polishes and some ointments, for candles - and for comb
foundation for beekeeping. It has the highest melting point of
natural waxes, and can be sold in either the raw or refined form.
Commercial beeswax is generally refined for sale by a manufacturer of
apiary products. Production of beeswax is closely related to honey
production, and Australia produces a surplus which is exported.
Australian beeswax is reported (industry sources) to command premium
prices on the world market, because of its freedom from adulteration
and chemical residues.

As indicated in Chapter 3, it has
been estimated that total output of beeswax in Australia is around 545
tonnes per annum. The ABS production data indicates a unit value
for this production of around $4.33/kg. for 1994/95, but industry opinion
is that this average should be assumed at $6.00/kg for 1996 (Queensland
Beekeepers’ Association). Applying this unit value to the assumed
production volume suggests a total Australian farm-gate value of $3.3
million for beeswax.

iii) Live bees. The production of
queen bees, and of entire colonies of bees, is the main diversification
available to beekeepers. The queen bee industry is dependent on
the existence of a profitable honey industry in Australia, and on an
export market to buy queens at a period when little or no sales are
available in Australia. The Australian market tends to be active
in the spring period between early September and the middle of November,
with spasmodic demand through to the end of March. Overseas countries
tend to require queens over a longer period, from December to May/June.
As outlined in Chapter 3, Australian demand for queen bees is estimated
at around 155,670 per annum - at an average price of $9/queen, this
represents a farm-gate value of around $1.5 million. This is a
conservative figure because export sales - estimated by industry sources
to be $0.75 million - are not recorded separately and have not been
added. Live bee exports is a potential growth area for the Australian
beekeeping industry, as further markets develop.

Package bees and nucleus colonies
are other forms of live bee production, and are sold both within Australia
and overseas. Again, data on total value of production for this
sector of the industry is not available, and has been estimated on the
basis of known production. The total value of this sector has
been assumed to be $2.25 million, which is almost certainly an under-estimate,
but which has been used as a conservative minimum

iv) Other products. In addition
to honey and wax, active beehives are also a source of other products.
These include :

- Royal Jelly - a milky white smooth jelly
secreted by nurse bees, used to feed developing queen larvae and young
worker bee larvae. The production of royal jelly is a very specialised
procedure, and flora conditions must be ideal before production can
be considered. Royal jelly is used as tablets, or mixed into creams
and shampoos. Most royal jelly sold in Australia is imported,
either in bulk (which is often re-packed for export) or pre-packed.
Very few beekeepers produce royal jelly for re-sale, as the imported
product is much cheaper.

- Propolis - a by-product of the bee hive.
It originates as a gum secretion gathered by bees from a variety of
plants, and can vary in colour depending on the plant species of origin.
Propolis has remarkable therapeutic qualities, and is much sought after
in some countries for the treatment of a range of human ailments, and
for cosmetic purposes. It is used by honey bees as an antiseptic
to varnish the interior of honey comb cells used by the hive to rear
young brood, to seal cracks in the hive from the winter chill, and for
general hive cleanliness purposes. Propolis is extensively harvested
by beekeepers in Europe. Few Australian beekeepers engage in the
commercial production of propolis, although a potential exists, because
the practice is time-consuming. The primary focus of Australian
apiarists remains the more rewarding production of honey and related
products such as beeswax.

- Bee venom - collected by stimulating
bees with a mild electric current. The venom is processed, and
used in the preparation of pharmaceutical materials. It can be
used to detect hypersensitivity or allergic reaction to bee stings.
It is not currently produced in Australia, but is imported (mainly from
Romania).

- Pollen - can also be harvested by beekeepers,
at a rate of around 7-10 kgs per hive per year. Pollen is used
by bee colonies as a source of protein, but harvesting pollen by the
beekeeper requires detailed knowledge of resources, hive management,
species flowering variations and timing, and hive response to different
honeys and pollens. Pollen is collected via specialised traps
fitted to the hives, and must be processed rapidly after collection
(usually via freezing or drying) to avoid excessive moisture absorption
and fermentation. Many beekeepers harvest pollen to feed back
to their hives during periods of natural pollen deficiency.

The commercial production of these products
is not widely undertaken in Australia. Based on industry comment,
it has been assumed that the total value of production from this sector
is in the order of $0.3 million per annum.

v) Paid pollination services. Some
beekeepers receive payment for placing hives in close proximity to flowering
crops, according to contractual arrangements with farmers. Rates for
pollination services in inland Australia varied between $25 and $35
per hive in 1996, with variations between crops. Some rates in
W.A. (W.A.A.F.) have been reported as high as $78 per hive for 1997.
It has been estimated that at least $2.9 million is received by the
industry in this way, based on total payments received for pollination
services in Tasmania (Gifford, 1989), and multiplied up to an Australian
figure by numbers of hives.

However, this is likely to be a significant
underestimation, as other States such as South Australia depend heavily
on bee pollination (and pay for such services) for clover and lucerne
seed production, as well as for fruit production. Estimates prepared
in S.A. (industry) indicate that paid pollination services could amount
to as much as $4.7 million per year. As discussed in Chapter 5,
the total value of all pollination services is considerably larger than
the above estimate of direct income received from such services.

As a result of this total production,
the direct impact of the beekeeping industry in Australia is likely
to be in the order of at least $60 million. This is based on 1996
data – the total gross value of production could possibly be higher
than this in 1997, as a result of movements in honey prices, and an
increase in rates paid for pollination services. In a recent paper,
Gill (1997) provides an estimate of $65 million for the total direct
income value of the honey industry in Australia. However, this
(1996) estimate correlates reasonably well with the RIRDC estimate of
a total value of $55 million for the industry (RIRDC, Program Plans
and Guidelines for Researchers, 1997-98). It should be noted that this
estimate relates to the gross (farm gate) value of production, and excludes
the value-added component introduced by packers and retailers.

It has been concluded that the direct
economic impact of the honey industry is therefore between $60 and $65
million per annum. When the significance of paid pollination services
in South Australia is taken into consideration, the higher estimate
of $65 million would appear well justified.

The following Table 4 summarises the components
of this total, as described in the preceding discussion of the value
of output from each of the defined sectors of the industry.

Table 4Value of production: Australia(All sectors of the industry)

Product

Value of Production( million/yr.)

Honey (including
comb sales)

Beeswax

Live bees

Other products

Paid pollination services

TOTAL DIRECT IMPACT

$49.8$ 3.3$ 3.8$ 0.3$ 2.9$60.1

4.3.2 By State

Having prepared an estimate of the total
value of production (and thus direct impact) for the beekeeping industry
in Australia, an estimate has then been made of the share of this total
production contributed by each State.

This estimate is based on honey production,
which in turn (see Chapter 3) is based on the numbers of hives in each
State. Total honey production accounts for more than 80% of the total
direct impact of the industry, and so is by far the largest single component.
As indicated in Chapter 3, the greatest number of hives is in NSW, and
so the greatest value of production is also from NSW.

Table 5Value of industry production, Australia
: by State

State

Honey production($ mill./yr.)

Total value of production ($ mill./yr.)

NSW

Queensland

Victoria

South Australia

Western Australia

Tasmania

AUSTRALIA

22.28.47.76.33.91.349.8

26.810.19.47.64.71.560.1

However, the contribution of
the different states, as shown in Table 5, thus represents the
State of registration of hives. Actual production values which
can be attributed to each State may be very different, as :

- bees in border areas may access floral
resources from across a border

- honey from one State may be packed and/or
processed in another State.

A brief comment on the industry in each
State follows :

New South Wales. Nearly
45% of all Australian honey production comes from New South Wales. In
value terms (given the higher average value attributed to Tasmanian
honey), NSW accounts for a slightly lower share - but is still by far
the largest single State in terms of the overall value of the industry.
Table 5 has indicated that the direct impact of the industry in NSW
is nearly $27 million. As indicated in Chapter 5, paid pollination
services are also important in NSW, with extensive fruit and vegetable
production, as well as seed production, in certain areas of the State.

Queensland. The honey bee
industry is considered as important to Queensland, not only for its
annual production of honey and beeswax, but also for improving pollination
of high value crops. The DPI has estimated that the industry has a direct
impact of around $4 million, whereas the Queensland Beekeepers’ Association
has estimated a total farm gate value of over $14 million (including
paid pollination services), but with both estimates excluding unpaid
pollination benefits. For the purposes of this study, a total value
of just over $10 million has been assessed for the direct impact
of the industry in Queensland - also excluding unpaid pollination services.

Victoria. The study has
assessed the total value of the industry in Victoria at around $9.5
million. This is much the same level as has been assessed for Queensland,
and is much lower than NSW. However, given the importance of the fruit
industry (including citrus) to Victoria, the unpaid pollination services
provided by the beekeeping industry would provide a greater economic
impact than this direct impact would suggest.

South Australia. The South
Australian industry produces around 13% of all honey produced in Australia.
Surveys within the State (Dept. Primary Industry, S.A.) have indicated
that there are 53 beekeepers who own more than 500 hives, and 870 with
fewer than 200 hives. Again, crop pollination services provided by managed
bees are considered to be the most important economic value of the industry,
with crops such as almonds, lucerne, vegetable seeds, and stone and
pome fruits relying on pollination by bees. The DPI (SA) estimates the
value of honey production at between $4.2 million and $7.3 million per
annum, depending on season, which is consistent (as a range) with this
study’s estimate of $6.3 million for honey (and comb) production.
However, the SA industry estimates that a total of $4.7 million is paid
for pollination services provided by managed honey bees in the State.
This would be additional to the estimate for honey production, suggesting
a total output figure of $12 million for the industry in this State.

Western Australia. Honey
prices and hive production in Western Australia are not considered likely
to increase markedly in coming years. However, the apiculture industry
in the State is considered (by Agriculture W.A.) to have the opportunity
to improve its performance through the production of high quality, disease
free products, and by diversifying into the production of package bees,
and pollination services to benefit the horticulture and oilseeds industries
and improve returns to beekeepers. This study has estimated the total
value of production of the WA industry at $4.7 million.

Tasmania. Forestry Tasmania
has recognised bee-keeping is an important industry in Tasmania, as
set out in the Forestry Tasmania document "Guidelines to facilitate
Apiculture on State Forest" (1994). This study has estimated that the
industry produced output of around $1.5 million for the State.
There are likely to be close links between the honey industry and tourism
in Tasmania, with the State’s production of leatherwood honey catering
to a "boutique" segment of the market. Given the higher prices paid
for leatherwood honey, and the importance of paid pollination services
in the State, the total value of the Tasmanian industry is likely to
be considerably higher than this estimate.

4.4 Other linked sectors - the indirect
impact of industry

It is generally acknowledged that any
economic activity will have impacts wider than the sector within which
the activity itself takes place, as a result of the demand for
goods and services generated by the activity in question, and of the
consumption expenditure which results from employees disposing
of their wages. This inter-relationship between different sectors of
the economy creates the so-called multiplier or "flow-on"
effect.

Research undertaken for this study has
not been able to identify any assessments which have been made to quantify
this relationship between activity in the beekeeping industry and the
wider economy. As a result, it is not possible to provide any numeric
estimate of the indirect impact that the industry might have on the
wider economy. However, it is possible to prepare some estimates of
the likely magnitude of some of the flow-on effects from operations
of the industry, with such estimates being presented in section 4.4.1
below. It is also possible to outline some of the sectors which receive
the most direct impact from activities within the industry, in terms
of purchases of supply materials, as presented in section 4.4.2.

4.4.1 Flow-on effects from beekeeping
industry

Various studies have examined the costs
involved in a commercial beekeeping operation. These include :

- An economic survey of the Honey Industry
in Victoria, 1980-81 (RIRDC)

- National Workshop on Economic Viability
of the Australian Beekeeping Industry (HBRDC, 1991) - various papers
relating to production costs.

It would appear that cash costs (i.e., expenditure
on goods and services required to produce honey, excluding capital) involved
represent between 75% and 80% of total income. On this basis, and using
the total value of production (honey only) assessed in section 4.1 as
$49 million, then it can be assumed that between $36 million and $40
million is spent by the industry on the various costs involved in
honey production. This is a significant cash injection, occurring mainly
in rural areas of regional Australia.

All these studies concluded that transport
(including fuel) and labour are the most significant components
of costs. This has been confirmed by interviews conducted with selected
individual beekeepers conducted during the course of this study. The
next largest category of expenditure is equipment required to process
honey. Expenditure on transport and labour could comprise around $30
to $35 million per annum, all of which would be spent in the rural regions
where the industry is based. The beekeeping industry is therefore making
a substantial contribution to economic activity in such rural areas
of Australia.

4.4.2 Supply industries

There are a number of specialist industries
which operate solely (or predominantly) to supply requisites to the
beekeeping industry. While not a part of the industry per se,
the supply industries would not be operating in their current form were
it not for the activities of the beekeeping industry. While not quantified
as a part of the beekeeping industry, their existence is certainly a
part of the indirect economic impact generated by the industry. This
"supply" sector includes :

i) Beehive manufacturers
- while only small in number, companies manufacturing hives for
the industry tend to specialise in this activity. Most hives used
in Australia are manufactured domestically, although a small number
are imported from New Zealand.

ii) Extractor/uncapping machinery
- any company skilled in the production of stainless steel equipment
for the food industry would be capable of manufacturing the machinery
required to "uncap" combs, and extract honey. However, Australian
operators tend to have specialised in the manufacture of equipment
for the beekeeping industry - such as Bee Quip in W.A., Blenkiron,
Vic., Superior Bee Supplies, Qld and Penders in NSW.

iii) Packers' equipment -
bottles and bottling equipment are required by packers. In addition,
drum manufacturers provide the special galvanised drum, made with
side bung, that is not generally available from other sources
for producers and packers. A gradual change to plastic drums is
taking place, with intermediate bulk containers, of pallet size
being used which hold more honey than do the traditional drums.

iv) Heat source - every honey
producer requires a steam or hot water boiler to generate steam,
and hot water, for processing honey and wax. While not requiring
a specialised manufacturing activity, the beekeeping industry
generates a demand for such equipment.

v) Transport/handling equipment
- all commercial beekeepers must purchase trucks and utilities
for transporting and servicing hives. Many also own bob-cats and/or
front end loaders for loading hives, on pallets, and loading drums
or use other forms of mechanisation.

vi) Other equipment - beekeepers
also have a need for other equipment such as electric generators,
caravans, and mobile extracting units. While the first two items
(as for heat sources) do not require a specialised manufacturing
activity, expenditure by the beekeeping industry can provide an
important source of demand.

vii) Quality Assurance -
beekeepers and packers are increasingly introducing quality assured
premises and equipment for handling honey, as a food product for
human consumption. Again, this is not necessarily a specialised
activity unique to the industry, but represents an additional
demand for existing services.

It is clear that a considerable amount of
other economic activity is generated within Australia as a result of the
activities of the honey bee industry.

4.5 Crop pollination services provided
by honey bees

Chapter 5 sets out a detailed discussion
on the value of the (unpaid) pollination services provided by managed
bees, as a result of the operations of the beekeeping industry. However,
this assessment of the economic role of the industry would be incomplete
without reference to the dimensions of this impact, as assessed by others.

Much of the Australian assessment in this
area has been conducted by Gill, who has produced many papers on this
subject (see bibliography). Gill acknowledges the difficulties inherent
in preparing an assessment of these pollination values, but has concluded
that the value to society of the pollination services market as it is
currently structured in Australia is likely to range between $605.84
million and $1.21 billion per annum (estimates as at 1989). This figure
represents the increased value of crop production resulting from the
pollination activities of honey bees – over and above the value of production
that would occur in the absence of this pollination activity.

The industry, working with various Government
agencies, has prepared some estimates at a State level. The basis for
these estimates, and the considered opinion developed as a result of
this study, are also presented in Chapter 5. These State estimates range
as follows :

In Tasmania, the value of agricultural
crops using pollination services provided by apiarists has been estimated
to be $111 million annually. In South Australia and Victoria,
the estimates of the "true value" of the apiary industry to agriculture
are $100 million and $145 million respectively.

Other States have yet to prepare an equivalent
assessment of the value added to agricultural and horticultural production
as a result of the incidental pollination activities of honey bees.

Chapter 5 presents a summary of a consistent
approach, across all States of Australia, together with a description
of the rationale used to prepare this overall assessment.

In summary, Gill’s estimate of a figure
ranging up to $1.21 billion provides an indication of the very
important economic role of the beekeeping industry at the national level.

4.6 Honey as a therapeutic agent

Developing extra uses for apiary products
could assist the development of the beekeeping industry. One of the
more interesting features of honey is that it has anti-bacterial properties.
It has well-established uses in ancient and traditional medicine, and
is now being re-discovered as a treatment for wounds, burns, skin ulcers
and gastroenteritis. There are reports that inflammation, swelling and
pain are reduced and that wounds heal more quickly with minimal scarring.
The international research community is investigating these reports
and conducting laboratory and clinical tests to develop the technology
for use in medical practice.

The anti-bacterial activity of honey is
due to several factors including water content, acidity and a natural
antibacterial agent called hydrogen peroxide which is formed by enzyme
activity in the honey. However different honeys vary greatly in their
anti-bacterial activity, depending mainly on the floral source. The
more anti-bacterial honeys appear to have at least one additional natural
factor which is not fully understood. Research is being concentrated
on these active honeys and how they work.

Manuka honey from a species of Leptospermum
(L scoparium) in New Zealand has a high anti-bacterial activity.
In Australia, recent work funded by the Rural Industries Research and
Development Corporation and the honey bee industry has confirmed that
several Australian honeys have activities similar to Manuka. This work
is continuing. These are exciting developments for the beekeeping industry
and medicine alike, particularly if antibiotic-resistant bacteria like
golden staph can be controlled.

4.7 Quarantine

Most of Australia’s crops and livestock,
including honey bees, were introduced with European settlement within
the last 200 years. While many pests and diseases arrived at the same
time or have appeared since, we are still free of many serious exotic
problems. As an island continent, Australia has a better-than-average
chance of maintaining its disease-free status which affects both production
costs and export markets. However we remain vulnerable, particularly
from the near north, as the recent entry of several exotic horticultural
pests demonstrates.

Several threats face beekeepers in Australia
now. The worst is probably Varroa mite (V. jacobsoni) which is
carried on Asian honey bees Apis cerana and European honey bees
A. mellifera to the immediate north of Australia. Apis cerana
wastracked by Australian quarantine authorities as it moved
from Irian Jaya through Papua New Guinea into Torres Strait at the rate
of several hundred kilometres per year. Swift action by both the Australian
Quarantine Inspection Service and the beekeeping industry contained
the incursion to the most northern Islands of the Torres Strait region.

Honey bees (Apis mellifera) in
PNG carry another exotic mite - the Asian mite Tropilaelaps clareae
- which may well cause as much damage as Varroa. Both mites attack honey
bee adults and larvae. Both honey bees to Australia’s north also carry
the serious tracheal mite Acarapis woodii which is still exotic
to Australia.

The potential for damage by exotic mites
can be judged by recent experience in North America. Varroa and the
tracheal mite Acarapis woodii are decimating honey bees in an
incursion which has been sweeping north from Florida since about 1987.
One report estimates the death of almost all feral honey bees and about
60 percent of managed bees from mites. A pollination crisis of some
magnitude is occurring in North America as a result. If the feral and
managed honey bee population in Australia should become decimated by
exotic mites, the effect on agriculture would be dramatic because of
the loss of pollination services. Chapter 7 indicates the benefit of
pollination to Australia to be in the order of $1.2 billion per year.

Another problem is that the chemicals
used for mite control could compromise Australia’s reputation as a supplier
of "clean" honey and beeswax products.

Yet another threat is the African honey
bee, Apis mellifera scutellata, a honey bee subspecies which
is notoriously aggressive. It crosses readily with the European honey
bee producing Africanised offspring which are also unacceptably aggressive.

Although European Foul Brood (Melissococcus
pluton) was first identified in 1977 and chalk brood (Ascosphaeraapis)
in 1993, there are still other exotic diseases which are absent from
Australia. The industry is concerned that these diseases and other pests
like mites and African honey bees could be introduced illegally with
queens, packaged bees or leaf-cutting bees. Also, Australia has an eradication
program for American Foul Brood (Paenibacillus larvae) which
could be compromised by contaminated imported honey.

Gill, R (1997) Beekeeping and Secure
Access to Public Land – how it benefits the industry and society.
A report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
and the Honeybee Industries Research and Development Council of
Australia. RIRDC Research Paper Series no 97/16.

Manning, R (1992) Honey production,
economic value and geographical significance of apiary sites in
Western Australia. Final Report for the Honeybee Research and
Development Council Project DAW 3H.

5. CROP POLLINATION

5.1 Summary

This chapter provides an assessment of
the benefits derived from pollination services provided by honey bees.
These benefits are represented by the value of agricultural production
that occurs because of pollination by bees. For some crops (such as
almonds) very little fruit would set without bee pollination, while
for others, production would still occur without bees, but quality and
yield are increased as a result of bee pollination. High seed set through
adequate fertilisation of multi-seeded fruit provides a beneficial effect
on fruit size and shape. The benefits of bee pollination accrue to the
agricultural sector, and via their direct value (domestic and export),
flow-on effects, and the utility value of food and fibre produced, to
the entire Australian community. Approaches to estimating the Australia-wide
benefit of pollination are reviewed, and equivalent estimates for the
value of pollination in each State, based on this approach, are presented.

Estimates of around $1.2 billion, based
on studies published by Gill in 1989, have generally been accepted as
representing the pollination benefits for Australia as a whole. The
bee industry in some States has worked with relevant Departments of
Agriculture to prepare their own estimates of pollination values. Using
a consistent approach over all States, this study has demonstrated that
:

a total pollination value of around
$1.2 billion would appear appropriate for Australia, using 1994/95
production value data, and listing only those crops for which
production data are available. This estimate includes the pollination
value contributed by bees to crops such as cotton, which are only
partially dependent on bee pollination for production.

comparable and consistent estimates
can be prepared for individual States. If cotton is excluded, these
range from $251 million in Victoria to $60 million in Tasmania. The
inclusion of cotton causes values for pollination benefits to increase
significantly in NSW and Queensland, to $347 million and $299 million
respectively.

5.2 The need for pollination services

In the context of this examination, pollination
refers to the fertilisation of flowering plants through transfer of
pollen by honey bees. While other agents can also act as plant pollinators,
honey bees are the most significant pollinators of some crops because
of the efficiency of foraging activities of bees, and the number (density)
of bees under managed conditions which can be applied to a crop.

The ability to ensure effective pollination
is a significant constraint to many growers of fruit, nut, vegetable,
and field crops (Jones, 1995), with many millions of dollars of potential
domestic and export crop production being lost annually. The agricultural
industry considers a strong, viable beekeeping industry to be vital
for the maintenance of successful fruit, vegetable, nut and other crop
production, as well as seed production.

The food chain introduced since the establishment
of European settlement is almost entirely exotic, with 65% of the food
crops introduced requiring honey-bee pollination (Jones, 1995). The
effective pollination of these crops is therefore vitally important
to the on-going ability of Australian agriculture to provide food for
the population, and to generate export income via the sale of food and
fibre commodities overseas. In the USA, it has been estimated that perhaps
one-third of the total human diet is dependent, directly or indirectly,
on insect-pollinated plants.

Another value of pollination relates to
its effect on quality and efficiency of crop production. Inadequate
pollination can cause reduced yields, delayed yields, and losses via
inferior (unmarketable) fruit. Crop production, and thus agricultural
incomes, can be improved as a result of achieving more effective pollination.
Honey bee pollination also provides a service to managers of eucalypt
forests, in stimulating seed set in "shy" types such as the Ash varieties
including E. regnans and E. delegatensis.

It is important to note that while only
managed honey bees can provide paid pollination services, both feral
bees and managed bees provide the unpaid pollination services. The importance
of the pollination services provided by feral bees was dramatically
demonstrated when ferals (left unprotected) in the USA became infected
with the parasitic Varroa and Tracheal mites, and were exterminated
in large numbers. A pollination crisis, particularly amongst lucerne
seed and lucerne hay producers, resulted from this loss of feral bees.
It was reported in the American literature that almost all of the feral
bees in the USA had been eradicated by the mites, and that more than
60% of commercial honey bees had also been killed by the mites. This
dramatic reduction in bee population was observed to have a severe effect
on lucerne (alfalfa) production in the US.

5.3 Paid pollination services

Gill (1989a) describes three ways in which
crops may be pollinated by honey bees :

by managed bees, in return for a
fee paid to the beekeeper

by feral bees at no cost to the
grower

incidentally, by managed bees, at
no cost to the grower.

Paid pollination services involve the first
of these pollination alternatives. Farmers engage commercial pollination
services for hives to be placed within or in close proximity to flowering
crops which are reliant on the activities of a pollinating agent such
as bees to achieve fruit set or to maximise fruit quantity and quality.
Such flowering crops can include fruit and nut trees, as well as pasture
legumes and vegetable seed crops. This source of income for the industry
has been outlined in Chapter 4, and is referred to as "paid pollination
services". Such services are particularly important in almond, stone fruit
and cucurbit production, and in the production of seeds for crops such
as lucerne, clovers, and vegetables.

It has been conservatively estimated (see
Chapter 4) that the total value of paid pollination services is in the
order of $3 million per annum. However, as noted, individual States
such as South Australia have provided much higher estimates, with up
to $4.7 million being assessed as received from paid pollination services
in this State alone. Other estimates of the income derived from paid
pollination have been obtained for some States, as described in the
following, while other States have indicated the crops for which bee
pollination activities are more keenly sought :

Tasmania. A survey conducted
in 1989 identified 2,176 hives being used for pollination services,
provided to a wide range of crops (Gifford, 1989). The majority of
these hives were used for the pollination of apples and other pome
fruits. Other crops where such hives were placed included vegetables
(carrots, onions, cabbage), and berries. At current rates for pollination
services of $30 per hive, and assuming similar levels of hive usage,
this represents around $65,000 in income for beekeepers derived from
paid pollination services.

Western Australia. The canola
crop of this State is the major recipient of pollination benefits,
but virtually no canola grower is currently prepared to pay for
pollination services. Other crops which benefit from beekeepers
include fruit, clovers and export apples - there is nil market tolerance
for misshapen fruit. Surveys of pollination services have been conducted
since 1993, with the latest survey (Feb. 1997) indicating a total
of 3,372 hives being involved in the provision of pollination services
(Manning, 1997 - unpublished). A major increase in the numbers of
hives involved has been observed since 1993, and indications are
that around 5,000 hives could be involved in the provision of pollination
services in 1998.

Again, the application of rates of
$30/hive would suggest that total income for beekeepers from pollination
could be in the order of $150,000. However, as indicated, the majority
of canola growers will not pay beekeepers for this service. Canola
growers are currently able to gain pollination services at no cost,
as alternative (coastal) apiary sites have been affected by fires
and frosts, with beekeepers having a consequent need to place hives
on flowering crops to build up the health of their bees.

South Australia. Almonds are
the most important single crop to benefit from bee pollination in
this state, as almonds are totally dependent on bee pollination
to set fruit and so produce nuts. However, almonds are not prolific
sources of nectar, and despite relatively high rates for eastern
States ($30 to $35 per hive) being offered by almond growers, some
beekeepers have chosen not to place hives in almond orchards.

It is reported (SA Dept. of Agriculture,
personal communication.) that an average weight loss of 10
kg/hive can be experienced while hives are in almonds. This is because
the bees are only gathering pollen, providing protein to the hive,
but not nectar, from the almond blossom. At an average price of
$1.50/kg, this loss of weight represents $15 of honey being consumed
by the hive. When the costs of

moving to the almonds

preparing hives

the potential loss of bees from
a protozoan infection (Nosema apis) exacerbated by pollinating
almonds

* the opportunity cost of
foregone honey production from good winter flows elsewhere are all added, the payments being offered
are not sufficient to attract all beekeepers to almond orchards. Other
crops to benefit from bee pollination in South Australia are lucerne,
other fruit such as plums, apricots, and apples, and vegetable crops
(and clovers) grown for seed production. Much lower rates are paid
for pollination of lucerne, for example, as up to 25 or 30 kgs of
high quality honey can be obtained from this crop – and yields as
high as 60 kg/hive have been reported.

New South Wales. Crops which
use paid pollination services in NSW include lucerne and canola
and clover (for seed), sunflowers, apples/pears, cherries, berries,
melons and pumpkins, kiwifruit, plums, avocados, macadamias, faba
beans, coriander and mustard. While contracts for paid pollination
services are routinely provided, data on the number of hives involved
is not available. However, it can be stated that the total value
of paid pollination services would be several orders of magnitude
less than the total value (in terms of additional crop production)
derived from the pollination activities provided by managed and
feral bees. Other sites may also provide incidental pollination
services, where hives are placed adjacent to crops, but intended
to allow bees to access other honey-yielding species such as yellow
box (E. melliodora) and river red gum (E. camaldulensis)
that occur on private property.

Victoria. Pollination services
in Victoria are important for fruit production including apples,
pears, nashi, avocados, some stone fruits including cherries and
plums, almonds, kiwifruit, blue berries and Rubus berries, and some
strawberry cultivars. Cucurbits in general are heavily dependent
as is a whole range of vegetable seeds (brassicas, onions, carrots).
Field crops such as canola and sunflowers also benefit from pollination,
especially hybrid seed production. Pollination is necessary for
production of clover and lucerne seed for domestic and export sales
and, in addition, existing pastures (clover) benefit from honey
bee pollination through increased seed yields and reseeding of pastures.

Increasingly, paid pollination is
being used for crop production in Victoria, with a significant number
of beekeepers deriving 20-40% of their income from this source.
Agriculture Victoria estimates a minimum of 20,000 hives are used
for pollination. At $30 per hive, the annual income would be about
$600,000. This is clearly an underestimate as each hive might be
used for more than one pollination service per year. The value is
likely to be more like $1 million.

Unpublished estimates prepared within
Agriculture Victoria value the pollination services provided by
honey bees (feral and managed) at up to $150 million. Sideline apiary
enterprises, engaged in paid pollination of intensive horticultural
and agricultural crops, are reported (Agriculture Victoria) to be
very important. There are many apiarists in Victoria who operate
colonies of 50+ hives, and provide a quality, commercial pollination
service to growers on a long standing basis.

Queensland. The pollination
services provided by bees, both paid and unpaid, are very important
in Queensland. The production of crops which are important for Queensland,
and are also highly dependent on the activities of bees, include
:

- the production of pastures, via
the production of seeds such as lucerne and white clover.

Many other crops, including beans,
citrus, strawberries, canola, and peanuts also benefit significantly
from the pollinating activities of bees. Increasingly, cucurbit,
avocado, pome and stone fruit growers are recognising the value
of these pollinating activities, and are prepared to pay for the
provision of such services. The beekeeping industry in Queensland
values pollination activities at $500,000 per annum – this figure
is supported by records indicating that 16,356 registered hives
are used to provide pollination services, which can then be compared
to an average payment of $30/hive. However it is generally accepted
that hives are used for pollination more than once per year. The
estimate of $500,000 is therefore regarded as a very conservative
estimate.

In the Northern Territory,
honey bees play a significant role in pollinating horticultural
crops including cucurbits (especially rockmelons and butternuts),
mangoes and cashews. Depending on the year, 400-500 hives are used
for paid pollination. However lack of effective pollination is still
one of the factors limiting the development of the rockmelon industry
and there is scope for expansion. With the development of the Ord
River Scheme, pollination of both horticultural and field crops
is currently and will continue to be an important factor, especially
for seed production.

The remainder of this chapter will outline
the possible magnitude of the much larger value of "unpaid" pollination
represented by the incidental pollination benefits that occur as a result
of honey bees accessing the flowers of crop species, in order to obtain
nectar and pollen.

5.4 Assessments previously made
of the value of unpaid pollination services

A number of attempts have been made to
derive estimates of the total value of pollination services provided
by bees. Some of these are reported here.

In New Zealand, it has been estimated
that the total annual value of honey bee pollination to primary production
(1992 data) is $3.089 billion, which has been calculated from the following
assumptions :

- replacement nitrogen from pollinated
pasture legumes $1.872 billion

- total value of fruit crop production
$1.005 billion

- total value of vegetables/seeds production
$0.211 billion

In contrast, the NZ beekeeping industry
is estimated to receive just $8.8 million in income from pollination
services – which represents 0.3% of the total value derived from bee
pollination.

Extensive analyses of the benefits of
the pollination services provided by bees have been conducted in Australia
by Gill. The many papers by Gill on the subject of estimating the pollination
benefits imparted by managed honey bees acknowledge the conceptual hurdles
involved in attempting to value the incidental pollination provided
by bees. Studies completed by Gill (e.g., Gill 1989b) have assessed
the likely total value of pollination benefits provided by bees as being
in the order of $1.2 billion. It is suggested that a large range of
values is possible, depending on the assumptions made – and in particular,
the assumptions made as to elasticity of response of production to a
drop in total output.

Gill’s basic approach compares a value
of production from a "with pollination" scenario, to that value produced
in a "without pollination" scenario. The two scenarios are related to
each other via "supply shock" factors for each type of crop – factors
which indicate the proportion of production that would still be obtained,
in the absence of bee pollination. This approach therefore contrasts
to the New Zealand study, which appears to have involved a simple addition
of total value of production from those crops considered highly dependent
on bee/insect pollination.

5.5 A comprehensive approach to
valuation of pollination services

This study has attempted to develop an
estimate of the value of pollination services in Australia, with data
being gathered at a State level so that the value attributed to the
pollination activities of bees in each State can be assessed. The valuable
body of work completed by Gill has provided a strong foundation for
this estimate of the value of incidental pollination.

In this analysis, the term "pollination
benefit" is taken as describing the marginal value added to the production
of specified crops as a result of bee pollination. This assumption means
that the benefit is assessed in terms of the amount by which production
would be lost if bee pollination were not available – in other words,
the percentage reduction in yield which would be expected if the crop
in question were totally isolated from insect pollination. This percentage
reduction is referred to by Gill as the "per cent supply shock" (see,
for example, Gill 1989a), and represents the supply reduction that would
occur if bees were to be removed.

The methodology employed for this analysis
has involved :

Data on the value of production
for 1994/95, by State, of certain crops has been obtained from the
Australian Bureau of Statistics (unpublished series, purchased for
this study). These crops were selected as being reliant on insect
pollination, and also as having comparable data across all States
available from the ABS.

The "supply shock" factors for each
crop, as used by Gill (Gill, 1989), were then listed. The factors
used are listed in Table 5.1 below.

The "supply shock" factors for each
crop, in each State, were then applied to the value of production
data listed for each State.

The results of this process provided
estimates of the value of pollination services, in each State, and
for Australia as a whole.

1. a selected range of crops for which
bee pollination is considered significant, and 2. crops for which disaggregated data at
a State level is available.

These limitations have meant that the
values of vegetable, clover and lucerne seed production have all been
excluded, as have values derived from the production of certain tropical
fruits (which are all highly dependent on bee pollination) such as lychees,
feijoa, and longan, as well as tea. Moreover, a wide range of
values can be derived, depending on decisions made as to whether to
exclude certain crops which, although subject to a relatively low supply
shock percentage, contribute a very significant proportion of the total
value of agricultural production.

Use of this approach indicates that the
total value of unpaid pollination services in Australia could be in
the order of $1.2 billion per annum (based on 1994/95 data). The
results of this analysis are in broad agreement with, and provide confirmation
of, Gill’s figures. Gill’s original work was based on latest data available
(in 1989) on the gross value of agricultural commodities produced in
Australia, with no analysis provided at a State level.

If the value of cotton production (and
thus the 20% of value which could be considered to be lost in the absence
of bee pollination) is excluded from the assessment, then an estimate
of $1.0 billion would be derived as the value of pollination services
provided by bees in Australia. If, however, cotton production
were to be included, then the total value of pollination would increase
to $1.211 billion. A range of similar analyses were conducted
to test the sensitivity of the overall results to such assumptions.
Other than for cotton, where the large absolute value of production
tends to strongly influence the results despite a relatively low supply
shock factor of just 20%, the results were seen to be fairly robust
to the assumptions made.

The most important crops, in terms of
their dependence on bee pollination to achieve production, are those
with a 100% or 90% supply shock factor. These crops, as listed
in the following Table 5.2, account for nearly 56% of the total estimated
pollination value in Australia.

There are other crops which,
although having a lower "supply shock" factor, have such a large absolute
value of production (and thus importance to the Australian economy) that
they also make a major contribution to the estimated value of incidental
pollination services. Those individual crops providing the greatest contribution
to the total value assessed for incidental pollination are listed in Table
5.3 below. It should be noted that cotton and citrus (with the exception
of some mandarins and lemons) are not highly sensitive to bee activity
(with "supply shock" factors on 20% and 30% respectively), but make a
large contribution because of the total value of production of these two
crops in Australia. The other three crops all have either 100% or 90%
"supply shock" factors.

These five crops alone contribute
around 53% to the total of $1.2 billion estimated at the value of pollination
provided.

5.6 Value of pollination services
in each State

While it is acknowledged that this analysis
of pollination values is not complete, it does provide a consistent
approach to the valuation of pollination services across all States
of Australia. This is in contrast to Gill’s work, in which data been
restricted to an assessment of the Australian total value.

The following Table 5.4 presents a consistent
set of estimates for each of the States of Australia, developed as a
result of applying the Australia-wide methodology outlined above at
an individual State level. While these figures may differ somewhat from
estimates that have been prepared separately in some States, it should
be noted that :

the process of assessing
pollination benefits in this study (i.e., use of the supply shock
factor) may differ from that used in the individual State assessments.

not all crops have been included
in the assessment presented in this study. As noted earlier, one
of the major exclusions is the value of clover, lucerne,
and vegetable seed produced, which can be very significant in some
States. The only data readily available from the ABS related to
the value of lucerne and clover hay production, and the value
of vegetables produced, rather than to seed production values.

The data in Table 5.4 clearly indicate
that all States receive benefits from the incidental pollination provided
by bees. It is also clear that these incidental benefits greatly exceed
the value of paid pollination services – the payments made to beekeepers
by farmers to ensure that bees are placed in close proximity to crops
for which bee pollination is considered vital (see section 5.3 above).
The agricultural community is therefore receiving a large benefit as
a result of the activities of the apiary industry.

Table 5.4Value of unpaid pollination services($ million)

State

value of pollination services

New South Wales Victoria Queensland South Australia Western Australia Tasmania

347.25251.47298.88165.6489.0559.28

Australia

1,211.57

The data in Table 5.4 thus provide
an assessment of the value of pollination services provided in each State,
which is consistent across each State and which are, in total, in agreement
with previous estimates prepared for Australia as a whole. In contrast
to estimates prepared by individual States, these valuation estimates
are truly comparable.

5.7 Validation of data

However, some concern has been expressed
by both the agricultural sector and the beekeeping industry in relation
to use of the ABS data on gross value of agricultural commodities produced
in this analysis. Both sectors believe that the ABS data are demonstrably
low, and thus any valuation based on these data would also be significantly
underestimated. In the light of these concerns, data on selected
production values were obtained from different sources in Queensland.
This State was selected as a test case purely on the grounds of having
access to more direct sources of data, via the Queensland Department
of Primary Industries (QDPI), and from agricultural producers using
the services of bees for pollination.

The analysis conducted for this
study has indicated a total value of pollination services in Queensland
of around $300 million. The more direct sourcing of production
data would indicate that the concerns over use of the ABS data may be
well founded, as some major anomalies were identified, viz. :

- the ABS lists the value of rock melons
produced in Queensland as $26 million for 1994/95. Information
from QDPI, from local records in the two major centres only (the Burdekin
and Bundaberg) suggest a value of rock melon production of $40 million.
Local sources believe these figures underestimate the value of export
rock melons, and that the “true” value of rock melon production should
be in the order of $50 to $70 million.

- the ABS data indicates a value of strawberry
production for Queensland of $11 million, while QDPI data estimates
strawberry production to be worth $35 million.

Based on this comparison, it is
apparent that the “true” value of pollination services in Queensland
could be much higher than the $300 million listed in Table 5.4 – perhaps
as high as $400 million. Similar data anomalies could therefore
also be found in other States, suggesting that the national estimate
of $1.2 billion could also be significantly underestimated. It
may be advantageous for a more detailed, carefully researched collection
of data to be prepared, and for a national valuation (built up from
State-level data) to be prepared.

However, despite these data concerns,
the analysis presented here is sufficient to indicate the major economic
role played by the beekeeping industry in supporting Australian agricultural
production.

The apiary industry is very heavily
dependent on public lands - the state forests, national parks, other
conserved forests, stockroutes and other land managed by government.
This land contains the majority of remaining native forest on which
the industry is so reliant. It also provides much of the network of
apiary sites which the industry needs to access in order to harvest
the honey flows which occur irregularly and for short periods. Native
forests on public lands also provide a “safe harbour” and clean rehabilitation
area which is needed to rebuild the strength and health of hives.

The response from government to
the issue of access to resources on public land - particularly conserved
areas - differs from state to state. In New South Wales, access to national
parks has been reduced drastically through government policy. In others
states like Victoria, access agreements which do not compromise conservation
objectives have been reached and reflected in legislation.

Although a precise figure cannot
be calculated, a significant proportion of the value of honey production
and the much greater value of pollination services can be attributed
to the resources on public land. Without access, the industry
could not survive in its present form.

6.2 Introduction

Previous chapters have demonstrated
the important economic role of the managed beekeeping industry within
regional Australia. The industry contributes around $60 million in income
to rural producers (farm gate values), which in turn is distributed
through rural economies in payments for goods and services. To maintain
this level of production, the industry needs access to high quality
floral resources - both nectar and pollen. Some key issues are discussed
below.

6.3 Public land as a resource
base for migratory beekeeping

The Australian beekeeping industry
has developed over many years around native plant species which flower
irregularly for short periods. An apiary site might be occupied
for as little as six weeks, and the apiary may be moved six times a
year. In Victoria, a commercial apiarist occupies on an occasional
basis about 20 sites per year, but in the long term a network of many
more than 20 sites must be available to accommodate the apiary in different
seasons (Briggs and Keith 1996). An apiarist may own several different
apiaries. The industry is thus highly migratory, and movements over
hundreds of kilometres and interstate are quite common. A large
network of sites to use different floral resources for different seasons
is required. The information given below shows that, in most states,
a large part of this network is in native forests on public land.

6.4 Reliance on native flora
on public land for floral resources, and the response of governments
to the issue of access

For honey production, the Australian
industry accesses floral resources from native forests, scrubland and
coastal heaths, pastures, weed species such as Salvation Jane, horticultural
and agricultural crops. The balance of resources varies from state
to state, but nationally there is an overwhelming reliance on native
flora, which accounts for 70 - 80% of annual honey production (Mathison
1988). Although some other floral types are significant, eucalypts
are by far the most important source of both nectar and pollen on a
national basis (Briggs and Keith 1996).

The dependence on native forests
is an issue for the industry because these forests are under threat
in Australia from land clearing, salination, and pests and diseases.
Native floral resources are declining. Agricultural crops, pastures
and weeds compensate to only a limited extent (Mathison, 1988). Plantations
of native or exotic species may help to reduce the reliance of the timber
industry on native forests, but it does little for beekeepers. As the
total forest area declines, the importance of the resource on public
land increases. The traditional access by beekeepers to these public
lands is being challenged - to different degrees in different states.
The position for each state is summarised below.

In New South Wales, the data from
Capilano Honey Ltd analysed by Somerville and Moncur (1997) reveals
that eucalypts supply, on average, 70% of the honey crop obtained by
NSW producers. Other native species including brush box (Lophostemon
confertus) provide from 5-17%, depending on the year. Salvation Jane
(Echium plantagineum) contributed 16%, and clover (Trifolium repens)
a lesser amount. These figures show that dependence on native forests
in NSW is overwhelming.

About two thirds of the forested
land in New South Wales is publicly owned. Approximately 25% is state
forest, 25% is crown timber land, and 16% is national park and nature
reserves. State forests and crown timber land are administered by State
Forests of New South Wales. The State Forest jurisdiction allows for
beekeeping as part of its overall management program, issuing about
3,800 permits in 1995 ( source: NSW State Forests). Another 2,900
sites are provided by the Rural Lands Protection Board on stockroutes
and reserves (Somerville 1997).

National parks are administered
by National Parks and Wildlife service (NPWS), and the area controlled
by NPWS is likely to expand. Some 53,300 ha have been transferred
to national park status without any consultation with agriculture or
the beekeeping industry (Jones 1995). While beekeeping sites held
before 1989 in public forest now managed by NPWS can be retained by
the permit holder, they are not transferable and no new sites will be
approved under current NPWS policy. Existing sites cannot be sold
as part of a business nor passed on to other family members. The
Association in NSW is working to have this decision reversed.

Nowhere else in Australia
has this “sunset” clause been imposed on bee sites in conserved areas
(Jones 1995) and in states other than New South Wales beekeeping is
permitted and access granted under relevant legislation (Briggs and
Keith 1987). This loss of access to resources in national parks
is greatly concerning apiarists in NSW.

In Queensland, the dependence on
native forests and eucalypts in particular is similar to New South Wales.
The Capilano Honey Limited data for 1995 shows 80% of receivals came
from native species, at least 65% from eucalypts. The remaining
20% came from crops (canola, cane, sunflower, citrus, cotton etc), various
weeds or miscellaneous sources.

A recent survey by the Department
of Primary Industries in Queensland shows 48% of production comes from
2,781 sites currently in active use on crown land, including leasehold
land. (there are currently about 4,500 apiary sites in state forests)..
Fifty-seven percent of sites on private land produced 52% of the honey.
These figures underestimate the relative importance of public land because
many beekeepers access this land from private apiary sites adjacent
to the boundary. At least half of the production, and probably
considerably more, depends on forests on public land.

Reasonable access to this land
has been negotiated. A cooperative policy for access to state
forests has been developed between the industry and the Forest Service.
The 1994 agreement between the (then) Department of Environment and
Heritage and the Queensland Beekeepers’ Association provided access
to permanently conserved lands by setting aside apiary sites in resource
reserves, in which beekeeping is an approved use. Leasehold land
is currently accessed by negotiation with lessees. The Queensland
Beekeepers Association is seeking a whole-of-government approach in
which access to resources is coordinated across the various departments
controlling land under different tenures.

In Victoria, a study by the Honey
Research Council in 1989 showed that 77% of the floral resource was
provided by eucalypt forests and woodlands and another 7% was banksia
scrubland and coastal heathland. Ten percent came from weeds including
Salvation Jane (Echium plantagineum) , 5% from crops (oilseeds and clovers)
and 1% from roadsides. Again, the overwhelming importance of native
forests, especially eucalypts, is demonstrated.

The Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources’ Guidelines (12/95) recognise that
85% of the State’s forest cover is now restricted to public land.
Access to this public land is considered essential to the industry as
it accounts for probably 50% of all apiary sites. The Department administers
approximately 630 annual apiary site licences and authorises occupancy
of a further 2,000 sites under 3-6 month permits when nectar and pollen
resources are abundant. Recognising the regional economic importance
of beekeeping, the former Land Conservation Council consistently recommended
the continued access by beekeepers where it is compatible with nature
conservation and public recreation. The recommendation has been
adopted by Government and supported by legislation.

In Tasmania, the industry is unusually
focused around one specific floral resource - leatherwood (Eucryphia
lucida and E milliganii) which accounts for 60 -70% of honey production.
The remainder is “white” honey derived from blackberries and clover
(Gill 1997). About 80% of the leatherwood honey comes from 45 apiary
sites in the World Heritage Area, the remainder from state forests.
Sixty-four percent of apiarists surveyed as part of the Regional Forest
Agreement process in Tasmania reported that they use native forests
predominantly.

Access by beekeepers to the World
Heritage Area is controlled under the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage
Management Plan (1992). It allows continued access to existing sites
(under some conditions), possible expansion if there is a proven nectar
source and existing road access, and transferability of sites.
The conditions of access have the full support of the Tasmanian beekeepers
(Gill 1997).

In Western Australia, the industry
is based mainly in the forests of the south-west. A survey by
Manning (1992) reveals the very high dependence on public lands in that
state also. An estimated 74% total production came from 791 apiary
sites on land controlled by the Department of Conservation and Land
Management (CALM).

Manning’s description of the six
most important areas providing the sites on this public land confirms
the importance of native species in general and eucalypts in particular
(including karri, jarrah and wandoo). The coastal heaths are also significant.
The extent of reliance on native forests on public land is thus similar
to the eastern States.

In 1992, CALM placed a 5-year moratorium
on apiary sites. No new sites were issued, and some cancelled
sites were not re-allocated. Some sites in sensitive conservation
areas were relocated to less sensitive areas. In general, access to
the major floral resources has been retained through negotiations with
a Beekeeping Consultative Committee, and bee sites can be transferred.
However beekeepers are pressing for a guarantee of continued access
now that the moratorium has expired.

In South Australia, the extent of
forest cover is much less than in the eastern States and Western Australia
and consequently the industry relies more heavily on crop, pasture and
weed species. Even so, remnant native flora (mainly eucalypts) on freehold
land and the economically-accessible public land remains important.
Industry estimates 50% of the state’s honey crop comes from native flora.
The banksia heathlands on conserved land serve a particularly useful
purpose in conditioning bees during winter for pollination of crops
- mainly almonds - in spring. Of 440 public land bee sites, 265
are located in the Ngarkat National Park.

The conserved areas are managed
by National Parks and Wildlife within the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources. Apiary sites were lost towards the end of the
1980’s when sites within national parks were made non-transferable.
However the conditions of access are being re-negotiated through the
SA Apiarists’ Association and the Apiary Industry Consultative Committee,
and some sites have been re-allocated. Access will be allowed as long
as research shows compatibility with native forest systems. Negotiations
are progressing towards formalising government policy.

In the Northern Territory, the industry
is small but is also reliant on native flora including eucalypt (especially
box) and melaleuca species. A small herb called Beriria which grows
in disturbed areas along roadsides is also important. The degree of
reliance on conserved areas has not been estimated. The industry
is denied access not only to resources within Kakadu and other national
parks such as Oolooroo, but also to the considerable resources within
a 5 km buffer zone around these conserved areas. This is an issue
of considerable concern.

6.5 Pesticide-free refuges

Many agricultural crops are sprayed
with insecticides, fungicides and herbicides to control pests.
Honey bees are deployed to such crops from time to time to improve crop
yields. Pesticides vary in their toxicity to honey bees, and sublethal
doses may have an effect on the hive similar to a break in the availability
of nectar and pollen (Ferguson 1988). Honey production may be
depressed because of the lower nutritional intake. After a period of
working crops, it is useful to have access to a pesticide-free forest
area in which to rehabilitate the hives.

During periods of Government-sponsored
spraying programs to control pests such as plague locusts or mosquitos,
forests are used as safe areas for managed honey bees.

6.6 Maintaining hive strength

Honey bees are short-lived, and
both nectar and pollen are required year round to maintain the honey
bee colony and to allow for the rapid expansion in the adult bee population
which occurs when floral resources are abundant. Nectar supplies
energy and pollen provides the vital source of protein for health and
growth.

A managed colony has a substantial
requirement for pollen - in the order of 15 - 55 kg/year (Winston 1987).
Floral types including the various eucalypts vary greatly in the amount
of nectar and pollen produced. The quality of pollen also varies - depending
on the balance of amino acids and proteins. For commercial reasons,
apiaries are often deployed to work nectar flows which yield little
or poor quality pollen. Pollen earlier stored in the hive maintains
it for short periods, but the hive must be returned fairly quickly to
an adequate pollen source to re-build colony strength and health.

From time to time, the best sources
of nectar and pollen supplies are to be found in native forests and
heathland systems on public land. It is important for the industry to
have the opportunity to use these resources when required.

6.7 Effects of excluding beekeeping
from conserved areas

Reducing access by beekeepers to
conserved areas has several effects. The most direct effect is
reduced production of honey, beeswax and other apiary products, lowering
the commercial viability of the Australian industry. The indirect
effects are several: the reduction
of community flow-on effects identified in Chapter 4 the loss of production
through the whole industry because at critical times the hives may not
otherwise be able to be maintained in adequate health and the loss of paid
pollination services which often depend on the ability to place hives
on good floral resources to maintain colony vigour and to build up adult
bee populations prior to the period of pollination.

Any significant reduction of access
to reserved native forest would have such wide-ranging effects that
the industry at large could not survive in its present form.

6.8 References

Briggs JL and Keith DG (1996). Honey
bees in Australian conserved forests. The Federal Council of Australian
Apiarists’ Associations. Policy Document.

Ferguson, F (1988). Long term effects
of systemic pesticides on honey bees. Proceedings of the Second Australian
and International Beekeeping Congress. Queensland. Ed by J W Rhodes

Gill, R (1997). Beekeeping
and secure access to public land. How it benefits the industry
and society. RIRDC Research Paper Series no 97/16.

Jones WA (1995). ‘To bee or
not to bee’; honey-bees in the Australian environment. Proceedings
of the Forest Resources ‘95 Conference. Macquarie University.
Ed by John R Merrick.

Mathison A (1988). Floral resources
and limiting factors affecting commercial beekeeping in Australia. Proceedings
of the Second Australian and International Beekeeping Congress. Queensland.
Ed by J W Rhodes.

Manning, R (1992). Honey production,
economic value and geographical significance of apiary sites in Western
Australia. Final Report for the Honeybee Research and Development
Council Project DAW 3H.

Somerville DC ((1997). Bee sites
and Rural Land Protection Boards in New South Wales - a major resource.
Australasian Beekeeper 99 (4) 142-143

Somerville DC and Moncur MW (1997).
The importance of Eucalyptus species for honey production in New South
Wales, Australia. Paper for the XXXVth International Congress,
Antwerp, Belgium, Sept 1997.

Winston ML (1987). The biology
of the honey bee. Harvard University Press.

7. THE EFFECTS OF HONEY BEES
ON NATIVE FLORA AND FAUNA

7.1 Summary

First introduced over 170 years
ago, honey bees (Apis mellifera) had colonised forests of much of Australia
by the mid 1800’s. Honey bees collect nectar and pollen from a
wide range of Australian native plants, but are they adversely affecting
those plants, or displacing wildlife? Over the last 20 years,
researchers have examined the potential for honey bees to interfere
with insect and bird pollinators, pollination and seed set, and with
animals requiring nesting hollows. Until recently, no study has
properly examined the interaction between managed migratory honey bees
and flora and fauna. The latest information is considered in this
chapter.

Native bees have been used as an
indicator of effects on insect pollinators. The most recent studies
support the argument these effects are either absent or minor.
The evidence so far on competition with fauna for nesting hollows suggests
that these effects also are minor, particularly in undisturbed environments.
With respect to bird pollinators and seed set, a recent study on Callistemon
show that honeyeaters may be displaced and seed set affected if the
nectar resource is limiting. Similarly, pollination of Correa
may be affected. However no adverse effects on honeyeaters or
plants have been demonstrated in studies where the resource is not limiting,
such as in Desert Banksia heathlands in winter. This is important
because the migratory commercial beekeeping industry seeks to operate
in native forests including conserved areas only under conditions of
excess resource.

The population dynamics of feral
and managed honey bee populations must be understood so that the potential
effects of feral and managed honey bees can be clearly distinguished.
Feral honey bees are uncontrolled, self-sustaining, ubiquitous and sometimes
present in high numbers. In contrast, managed honey bees are moved
regularly to harvest excess honeyflows and their numbers and location
are controlled by beekeepers and public land managers. In the
absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, access to other conserved
areas, as presently allowed, should be continued.

7.2 Background

The Australian honey bee had its
origins in successful introductions in New South Wales in 1822 and Western
Australia in 1866. Over the last 170 years, it has become naturalised
- in all but perhaps the most arid areas - from Cape York to Tasmania
and from the east to the west coast. By the mid-1800’s, honey
bees were established in the forest systems of much of Australia (Laurie
1863). There is anecdotal evidence that by the late 1860’s settlers
were augmenting diet and income by harvesting honey from feral honey
bee colonies. Feral honey bees supplied the stock from which small
apiaries were established, giving rise to the honey bee industry in
Australia (Briggs, personal communication). An efficient gatherer of both nectar
and pollen, the honey bee is found in most habitats including eucalypt
and rain forests, coastal heaths, farming and grazing land and urban
areas. It is not surprising that there are concerns from some ecologists
about the possible effects of the honey bee on native plants and animals. The debate about these perceived
effects is important for economic, social and conservation reasons.
The information in earlier sections of this report shows that the beekeeping
industry contributes significantly to the national economy and that
many Australians depend on it. It also shows that the industry
relies very heavily on continuing access to native forests including
conserved forests. Restricting this access would have far-reaching
economic and social effects. On the other hand, the integrity
of conserved areas must be safeguarded for the current and future generations.
Management decisions must therefore be based on scientific assessment
rather than emotion or ideology.

The Australian scientific research
on environmental effects is considered in this chapter. Most of
the work has been conducted within the last 20 years. Early studies
on competition are relevant to the effects of feral honey bees, but,
until recently, no studies properly examined the interaction between
managed, migratory apiaries and the native flora and fauna.

As part of the current debate about
forest use in Australia, all of the relevant literature has been comprehensively
reviewed recently by Seeman (1994), Paton (1995), Sugden et al (1996),
Schwarz and Hurst (1997), Manning (1997), and others. These reviews
have been considered in formulating this report.

7.3 Scientific studies on the
environmental effects of honey bees

Honey bees visit a very wide range
of species from over 200 genera of Australian native plants. In some
habitats, 30 - 50% of plant species in an area may be visited. These
species are normally pollinated by wind, birds, insects or mammals.
Nectar and pollen produced by these plants are also shared by many insects
and vertebrate animals. Most studies on environmental effects
consider competition for nectar or pollen between honey bees and the
native fauna, interference with pollination of plants, or competition
with fauna for nesting hollows. These studies are considered below.

7.3.1 Competition studies

Effects on native beesNative bees as an indicator of
competition

Native bees are a natural focus
for researchers investigating the effects of honey bee competition.
They are by far the dominant agents in pollination of natural ecosystems,
and there are over 1,500 species in Australia (Sugden, Thorp and Buchman
1996). Native bees and honey bees share nectar and pollen resources,
but honey bees might be expected to have an advantage because they have
an extended foraging period, can regulate hive temperature, can recruit
many nestmates to take advantage of abundant resources, and can forage
over larger distances (Schwarz and Hurst 1997). Honey bees, being
larger than most other insect visitors to flowers, can remove larger
amounts of nectar and pollen during a visit (Paton 1995). If there
are effects on native pollinating insects, they should be revealed in
competition studies with native bees.

Effects on numbers of native
bees

If honey bees compete with native
bees, the number of native bees visiting flowers might be expected to
fall when honey bees are introduced in hives. Such an effect was
reported by Pyke and Balzer (1985) who worked with a species of Leptospermum.
However in his report in 1995 Paton stated that, for a number of technical
reasons, the study did not provide convincing evidence of competitive
interaction. Although he felt that the results of similar studies
by Bailey (1994) on a Leucopogon were more credible, he was still not
convinced that lower counts of native bee visits would necessarily indicate
competition. Competition for resources might cause the native
bee to take longer to collect the amount of nectar and pollen needed
to package with its single egg in a nesting burrow. If this were
the case, more sightings would be expected in the field.

Effects on reproductive performance
of native bees

A long-term decline in the reproductive
performance of native bees would be a better indicator of competition
with honey bees. From a study in Nadgee Nature Reserve in NSW,
Sugden and Pyke (1991) reported such an effect. However again the recent
reviews point to significant inconsistencies and ambiguities in this
work.

The more recent study reported by
Schwarz and Hurst (1997) on reproductive performance at Cobboboonee
State Forest near Portland, Victoria is more detailed and more relevant
because, for the first time in Australia, it was geared to commercial
migratory beekeeping. Yet this study provides no evidence for resource
competition. On the contrary, colony survival and brood production of
the native bee species were higher when honey bee hives were introduced.
The authors suggested that the increased density of honey bees might
have saturated the local predator population, reducing predation on
the native bees. Significantly, nectar and pollen sources in this
eucalypt forest system during this study were not limiting.

Spessa and Schwarz conducted another
study in the Black Ranges, Toolangi State Forest, Victoria (see Paton
1995). Preliminary data suggests no conspicuous impact of honey
bees on this site, although pupal masses of the native bee may be slightly
lower.

Conclusions from native bee studies

Even though native bees might be
expected to be affected by honey bees, the Australian information provides
no convincing evidence for such an effect. Reviewers indicate
that more research is needed. For example Schwarz and Hurst (1997) argue
that “the jury is out (or should be) regarding the possibility of negative
impacts of Honey Bees.”

Sugden et al (1996) reviewed the
information from around the world. They noted that “the most stringent
analysis would reject most or all of the studies as incomplete or flawed
and therefore incapable of providing useful conclusions.” However
they felt that the balance of evidence tended to suggest that honey
bees have an impact on other bees under some circumstances. They
also acknowledge that others might interpret the data differently.
These comments only highlight the fact that a clear case for adverse
competition has not been established.

Effects on birds

Australian honeyeaters depending
on the same resources as honey bees are the most likely birds to be
adversely affected by them. Only David Paton and co-workers have experimentally
manipulated honey bee numbers and measured responses by birds (Paton
1995). The first of two studies was conducted on the scarlet bottlebrush
(Callistemon rugulosus) in Scott Conservation Park near Goolwa, SA.
New Holland Honeyeaters responded to honey bee presence by visiting
flowers less often, avoiding the inflorescences favoured by bees, and
feeding at different times of the day. The number of honeyeaters
in an area was halved, and females appeared to be displaced more than
males.

The second study on the Desert Banksia
(Banksia ornata) heathlands in the Ngarkat Conservation Park in South
Australia produced different results. Introducing commercial quantities
of honey bees did not affect the number of honeyeaters in three different
seasons, nor the numbers of nectar-feeding mammals or invertebrates.

The explanation for the quite different
effects on honeyeaters in the two studies by the same research group
in the same state appears to lie in the amount of floral resource available.
In the Callistemon study, all of the nectar being produced was consumed
by floral visitors, predominantly New England Honeyeaters and/or honey
bees. In the Banksia study, there were surplus floral resources.
This might have been because honeyeater populations were limited by
habitat disturbance (land clearance) outside the park, where the birds
spend summer and autumn, rather than conditions in the Park during the
winter flowering period.

Conclusions on bird studies

The conclusion to be drawn from
these studies on birds is that competition with honey bees may occur
in some ecosystems, and not in others. If floral resources are
limited, competition may occur. If resources are surplus to the
requirements of native fauna, as at Ngarkat, competition is not an issue.

Effects on pollination of plants

Honey bees are important and efficient
pollinators of many agricultural crops. They might be expected
to increase, decrease, or alter pollination in native plants.

The risk of increased hybridisation

Hybridisation of plants is a natural
evolutionary process. An efficient introduced pollinator such
as the honey bee might cause more hybridisation of native plants.
Such an effect would be of concern in Australia where the flora is unique
and diverse. However there is no experimental evidence to support
it. Indeed, there are substantial reasons for concluding that hybridisation
of native plant species is far less likely to be due to the foraging
of honey bees than to the foraging of native pollinators including native
bees and birds. Among the Apidae genera, honey bees have a remarkably
high species fidelity, and remain constant to a single floral source
until reprogrammed by the hive to work another species (von Frisch 1953).

Paton (1995) states that “many
species of native fauna are just as likely to effect interspecific pollen
flows as honey bees, if not more so...”. He also notes that the
frequency of hybridisation is low, despite the frequent movement of
native pollinators between species, suggesting that post-pollination
mechanisms select against inter-specific pollen.

Australian studies on pollination
and seed set

Several recent studies have focused
on the effects of honey bees on pollination of Australian native plants.
At Goolwa in South Australia, Paton (1995) worked with Callistemon rugulosus
which is largely self-incompatible and is usually pollinated by the
New Holland Honeyeater. Floral resources were limiting and the
honeyeaters were displaced by honey bees, as described previously.
Pollen-gathering honey bees struck the stigma on only 16.7% of visits,
compared with >50% for honeyeaters. Honey bees moved between plants
far less frequently than honeyeaters. Under these conditions,
it would be expected that seed-set would be reduced by honey bees, and
experiments with flowers caged to exclude birds but not honey bees confirmed
such an effect.

Paton also reported another effect
where honey bees and birds were harvesting different resources from
the one plant, the Common Correa (Correa reflexa) in Flinders National
Park. The plant releases pollen from its anthers before the stigma
is receptive. Honey bees preferred to gather pollen, while the
birds sought nectar. There was no competition for resources and
the birds were not displaced. However seed set was reduced.
Experiments show that the honey bees removed most of the pollen while
the plant was functionally male. Subsequent visits by birds during
the female phase were ineffective with respect to pollination.
Paton (1995) also noted that Pyke reported a similar effect where pollination
in Christmas Bells (Blandfordia nobilis) was reduced by honey bees,
but provided no quantitative data.

Most of the studies mentioned above
are relevant to the debate about whether feral honey bees adversely
affect pollination. The evidence suggests that there may be adverse
effects under conditions of limited floral resources when the feral
honey bees use non-commercial species.

However a different effect might
reasonably be predicted for managed honey bees introduced into an area
to take advantage of a honeyflow in a commercial species. One
of the few detailed studies relevant to migratory managed apiaries (Paton
1995) demonstrates this point. The researchers examined the effect
of seasonal introduction of commercial quantities of managed honey bees
at Ngarkat Conservation Park in South Australia where there were surplus
floral resources in the Desert Banksia (B ornata). In each of
three years, the managed honey bees introduced to the area significantly
increased seed production. This appears to be because there are
too few native pollinators in the park to adequately pollinate the flowers.

Unfortunately, pollination experiments
to test the effects of managed honey bees on non-target species under
conditions of excess honeyflow do not appear to have been conducted.
Given that honey bees maintain fidelity to a honey source while it remains
available, it is likely that non-target effects would be minimal.

Conclusion on pollination studies

There is no evidence for increased
hybridisation by honey bees, and indeed it is unlikely.

When floral resources are limited,
honey bees may adversely affect pollination of some non-commercial species.

No corresponding studies have been
performed on managed honey bees on non-commercial plant species under
conditions of excess nectar and pollen resources. However the
effects could reasonably be expected to be minimal.

Paton’s study on the Desert Banksia
shows that, when floral resources are not limiting, introduced managed
honey bees had no adverse effects and may indeed substitute for low
numbers of natural pollinators.

Effects on nesting sites

Feral honey bees establish nests
in tree hollows and other places in cavities which meet certain requirements
of volume, height above ground, size of opening, and so on. Cavities
meeting these criteria are also used by a range of birds, bats, reptiles
and other animals. Thus there are concerns that honey bees might
displace native species, including some which are rare and endangered.

One of the few detailed scientific
studies on this subject was conducted by Oldroyd and colleagues (1994)
in Wyperfield National Park, Victoria, where the vulnerable Regent Parrot
shared its territory with high densities of feral honey bees.
Of the 3,908 available hollows throughout the study area, 27 were occupied
by feral hives and 15 by regent parrot nests. Thus 99.3% of hollows
were available to native fauna. Although managed honey bees had not
been introduced into the area for 20 years, the feral bee population
was very high by world standards. Even so, there was no evidence
of competition for nesting hollows.

Paton’s 1995 report lists several
other studies including those on cockatoos by Saunders in Western Australia.
He says that the consensus is that in most areas, natural hollows are
under-used. He also notes that while the competition studies between
feral honey bees and native hollow-dependent fauna are far from satisfying,
the greater concern is the continuing loss of old hollow-bearing trees
due to logging, agriculture and natural decay.

Conclusion about competition
for nesting hollows

The evidence for competition for
nesting hollows suggests that nesting hollows are not in short supply
in undisturbed environments. Competition for nesting sites is
not affecting reproductive success in such areas.

7.4 The importance of measuring
floral resources in ecological studies

Seeman (1994) notes that an important
requirement for competition is that the resource must be limiting.
The studies by Paton, already described, support this point. Research
which aims to reflect commercial beekeeping practice or typical feral
bee behaviour must include measurement of the resources available.
Otherwise the results are very hard to interpret.

Paton (1995) summarised three types
of studies used to measure floral resources in Australia. The
first measures the total amount of nectar produced per flower, plant
or per unit area and relates it to the needs of honeyeaters. The
second measures nectar remaining in flowers at different times of the
day, and compares the resource with the amount of energy needed by birds
to harvest it. The third calculates the proportion of floral resources
used by honey bees compared with other species, mainly birds, at selected
plants.

With the notable exception of the
Schwarz and Spessa experiments in eucalypt systems, the studies on floral
resources are limited in number and confined mainly to heathlands or
low woodlands where plants such as Banksia flower in winter. Although
Banksias are important resources in their own right, more studies are
needed for other systems, especially eucalypts, on which the migratory
beekeeping industry is based. However eucalypts flower irregularly,
and this is a critical point when measuring floral resources, and competition
effects associated with managed migratory apiaries. River Red
Gum (E. camaldulensis) for example, may flower only for a 6-week period
every third year, and managed bees will be introduced only for that
period when the resource is in excess - ie 18 weeks occupancy by apiaries
out of a possible total of 468 weeks.

7.5. Why managed and feral
honey bees must be distinguished

“Oils ain’t oils” and “bees ain’t
bees”.

In the debate about environmental
effects, it is absolutely critical that the differences between the
feral and managed honey bee populations be understood and taken into
account.

Feral honey bees are a natural component
of all forested, woodland and heathland ecosystems and have been for
the last 170 years. Natural dynamics regulate population densities.
Although there is interaction between feral and managed populations,
the feral population is essentially self-sustaining. Indeed, it
may be genetically distinct (Koulianis 1991). It is neither dependent
on nor controlled by man. Feral colonies operate in the one location
all year round. In contrast, managed honey bees are operated mostly
as migratory apiaries, most often for short periods when conditions
are non-limiting. They are totally man-dependent, and the population
can be controlled. Further details are given below.

7.5.1 Feral colonies

The feral population is controlled
by natural factors - rainfall, drought, temperature, fire, floral resources
and bee diseases. The density of the population varies from area to
area, and also within an area. Paton (1995) provides information for
the distribution in each state. In Victoria, for example, feral
colonies are present throughout, with highest densities in north-west
mallee regions and riparian habitats, ironbark woodlands, north-east
regions, and drier woodlands in the south-west. Goodman and Hepworth
(1996) found 0 to 12 colonies in 30,000 square metre survey blocks in
the Goulbourn Valley. The lowest densities are in the wetter forests
of eastern Victoria.

Paton (1995) lists a range of values
from 0.001 to 0.77 colonies per hectare. The higher figure was
from work by Oldroyd et al (1994) in Wyperfield National Park in north-western
Victoria. The nests were located along a riparian woodland in
Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) and Black Box (E. largiflorens) trees.
Although not representative of the entire park, they show that very
high densities occur in some habitats. A related study (Oldroyd
et al 1995) in the same park shows that the feral nests may be aggregated
rather than evenly distributed. Six nests were located in a single 1-hectare
plot.

Feral colonies are not controlled
at the present time. Future options are limited but include chemical
control, physical removal of colonies, and limiting access to watering
points (Schwarz and Hurst 1997) Chemical methods obviously have
the potential to affect managed honey bees and native flora also.
All of the proposed feral control methods pose technical difficulties
and/or safety issues. In addition, reinfestation is likely to
occur through the same means by which the original populations were
established over 100 years ago.

Because they are not exposed to
systematic genetic improvement as the case with managed honey bees,
feral honey bees develop different and sometimes undesirable behavioural
traits.

7.5.2 Managed honey bees

Managed honey bees are deployed
quite differently. Commercial beekeepers move hives up to 6 times
a year to maximise financial returns. Successful professionals
monitor the flowering of honey flora and maintain a range of apiary
sites for use over a period of years. The hives, moved at night,
may be transported hundreds of kilometres and sometimes over state borders
to access major honey flows. The sites may be on public or private
land, and may be occupied for as little as 6 weeks. Several years
may elapse between occupancies.

The information provided in Paton’s
1995 report shows the floral resources used in Tasmania, South Australia
and Western Australia and the months of use. It confirms that commercial
beekeeping is migratory and that the resource is often used for short
periods.

Individual apiary sites are used
for different purposes, depending on the abundance of nectar and pollen.
They are used to produce honey, provide pollination services, or to
rebuild hive strength. Beekeepers also provide pollen and nectar
supplements to maintain hives during periods of resource shortage. Diseases
can be controlled in managed apiaries.

How apiarists use individual sites
is now being quantified by research funded by the Rural Industry Research
and Development Corporation, the industry and state governments.
For example, a study in Western Australia by Manning (1992) showed that
sites used by commercial beekeepers were vacant on average for 77% of
the year, and those by semi-commercial beekeepers, for 50%. Commercial
beekeepers used an average of 101 hives per site, producing 77% of the
total honey. Non-commercial beekeepers produced 23% with an average
60 hives per site. Studies in other states are producing similar
information.

The current studies are also showing
the extent to which conserved areas are used by beekeepers and what
percentage of the natural resource is being exploited. These can
be calculated by the number of available apiary sites and the foraging
distance around sites. In Western Australia, Manning (1997) notes
that commercial apiarists in Western Australia are harvesting only 40%
of the potential honey crop from 62% of the available land controlled
by the Department of Conservation and Land Management in the south-west.

The above information shows that
feral and managed populations need to be considered separately when
evaluating competition effects or control strategies. The two
populations are distinct, behave differently, and are likely to have
different effects.

7.6 Discussion

The Australian studies discussed
above show that

effects on insect
pollinators such as native bees are minor (or even slightly beneficial) competition for
nesting sites with native animals is not proven there is no evidence
for increased cross-pollination (hybridisation) honeyeater behaviour
and seed set may be affected, but only when the resources are limited.

Migratory beekeepers in Australia rely
heavily on access to native forests including conserved areas for both
honey and pollen, but, as stated, they seek access to these areas only
for the relatively short periods when floral resources are in abundance.
It is not profitable to do otherwise. The weight of evidence to
date suggests that adverse effects under these conditions are non-existent
or minor.

Another important point is that, compared
with the effects of fire management by man, natural phenomena (wildfire,
drought and excess rainfall), and the activities of feral animals including
pigs, cats, and rabbits, the effects of all honey bees on the reproductive
success of native flora and fauna are unimportant.

In Australia, there are already scientific
and other areas set aside without commercial activities of any kind.
There do not appear to be any good technical arguments for restrictions
of access to other conserved areas where the floral resource is abundant
from time to time. Policy decisions to exclude beekeepers from
conserved areas cannot be justified on ecological grounds. However
one of the options open to resource managers is to develop codes of
practice in association with the beekeeping industry.

Resource managers must distinguish between
the effects of feral and managed honey bees in conserved areas.
Only then can the relative effects of the two populations be put in
context.

There is general agreement by both beekeeping
organisations and scientists that more research is required on some
aspects. If this research is aimed at defining possible effects
of managed bees, it must be relevant to commercial migratory production
methods - exposure only for the duration of honey flows. If directed
towards the effects of feral bee honey bees, the number and size of
colonies should approximate those in the wild. General studies
of the effects of large numbers of bees under restricted resource conditions
will not advance the current debate.

7.7 References

Bailey WJ (1994). Feral bees:
their potential effect on the native insect fauna. In R Siewert,
N Robinson and P Horwitz (eds) Impact and control of feral animals in
south-western Australia, pp 19 -28. Conservation Council of Western
Australia, Perth.

Laurie, JS (1863). Landsborough’s
exploration of Australia from Carpentaria to Melbourne, with special
reference to the settlement of available country. p 42.
Murby, Simpkin, Marshal and Co. London . Quoted from Gross CL (1996).
Submission to the Wet Tropics Management Authority regarding agistment
of the introduced honeybee, Apis mellifera L in or adjacent to World
Heritage Areas (unpublished).

Manning R (1992). ‘Honey production,
economic value and geographic significance of apiary sites in Western
Australia.’ Final report to Honey Research and Development Council:
Canberra ACT.

Throughout this study, the authors have
enjoyed the full co-operation of industry leaders, government officers,
researchers and beekeepers throughout Australia. Without this
assistance, the report could not have been completed to its current
level of comprehensiveness and accuracy.

The contribution of all sectors to this
report is gratefully acknowledged, especially that of the FCAAA’s steering
committee -

Special thanks also go to members of the
Honey Packers and Marketers’ Association, including Bill Winner of Capilano
Honey Limited, for access to industry statistics.

The authors would also like to thank the
apiary officers, scientists and industry leaders, especially those who
provided specialist technical information and/or reviewed the draft
report. Such individuals include :